7 ms·

One of the rules in Apples App Store policy is that developers are not allowed to communicate with customers out side the app, even if they asked for permission

One of the rules in Apples App Store policy is that developers are not allowed to communicate with customers out side the app, even if they asked for permission in the app. (They were enjoined against doing this in the recent Epic Games v. Apple ruling [1]) Apple also forbit apps from directly telling people about other purchasing options in the app. If a customer did download an app, and set up an account, and that app's creator wanted to say hey you have other options to pay us how would they do that? Yes they could do a generic advertising campaign and reach mostly non-customers, but they could not by Apple's rules directedly talk to their own customer base. To use the Doordash analogy this is like saying you can't include a menu with direct ordering phone number with a delivery. I do think this qualifies as "forbid people from telling people they could pay for a purchase outside the app." The difference is between Apples actual rules and the hypothetical Doordash behaving badly is more about degrees of control and likely hood of working that actual intent. Your own examples don't fit to Apple's behavior any better, DoorDash saying you can't advertise Uber Eats on your menu is nothing like Apple saying Amazon can't advertise Amazon in Amazons own Amazon app. Your using the example of a competitor advertising in the competitions app, that is an apples to oranges comparison, Apple owns the platform, you could argue that Apple can say that Amazon can't advertise their Android tablets in the Kindle app, maybe that would be like your example, but that was never what the issue was. [1] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060628/epic-apple-injunction.pdf https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21060628/epic-apple-i... Section 1. (ii)

dkonofalski 5y ago
No, it's not. Amazon's App Store application doesn't exist without the Apple ecosystem and Apple's customers. Amazon is allowed to advertise anything they want outside of the Apple App Store, including on Android and any other platforms not run by Apple. The rule is only about advertising for other services within the platform that Apple runs. They absolutely can communicate with their customers but that can't advertise to Apple's customers to promote circumventing the App Store's systems. My example isn't at all like what you're describing unless Amazon's app is outside of the Apple ecosystem. There is literally no business that allows companies using their property to advertise their competitors. Your example about a direct ordering phone number is not analogous at all. A better example would be a restaurant allowing DoorDash to post advertisements but specifying that they can only advertise for their own services, not promote other companies who pay DoorDash more for priority. Your whole argument is based on an incorrect understanding of the agreements made to use the App Store and an inaccurate understanding of the limits imposed by apps. I am not using the example of a competitor advertising in the competitions app. I'm using the example of someone advertising on a business's property or platform to advertise a different platform.
- VenTatsu 5y ago
  > No, it's not. Amazon's App Store application doesn't exist without the Apple ecosystem and Apple's customers. When did I talk about Amazon's App Store? This is about Amazon's Apps on Apple's App store and on iOS. > Amazon is allowed to advertise anything they want outside of the Apple App Store True, I mentioned that and rebutted it in my last post. > The rule is only about advertising for other services within the platform that Apple runs False, at least in the respect that the Kindle Store is not a platform Apple runs, Apple runs the installations system on iOS, they use that to extend their reach into what other companies run. > They absolutely can communicate with their customers ... Amazon can, to use the Kindle app you must have an Amazon account created outside the app, they have the right to communicate outside the app because that point of contact originated outside the app. Any one not already the size of Amazon that starts as an app on iOS is not allowed to try to extend that relationship outside of iOS. That is why a federal judge felt it necessary to rule that Apple's behavior was against California law. > There is literally no business that allows companies using their property to advertise their competitors. Except news papers, TV stations, movie studios, ISPs, phone companies, etc. All of these allow competitors to buy add space on their platforms, or use their platforms to communicate competing offers. Did you know movie studios once refused to let theaters run their movies if the previews/trailers were for any movies not from the same studio? Courts put a stop to that, now at most a studio can require that some but not all of the previews/trailers be for their films. Back when long distance phone companies were a thing people cared about in the US, AT&T tried to block their competitors from cold calling companies to get them to switch, they also lost that case. Yes, none of these companies want to allow their competitors to use their platform, but none of them are allowed by law to stop it. > Your example about a direct ordering phone number is not analogous at all. It's not analogous to Apple preventing Amazon from providing links in the app to Amazon's own web site? How? This is the point of the similarity, you use the Doordash app or website (you use the Apple App Store), you order food (you download an app), when you get your food there is a menu inside that suggests you order direct, maybe even including coupons that give a discount on pickup orders (you open the app and when you pick something to buy you are provided a link to their site instead of an App Store button). Can you explain where I'm going wrong on that analogy? I know it's not 100% the same, it's an analogy, they are never exactly the same. > Your whole argument is based on an incorrect understanding of the agreements made to use the App Store and an inaccurate understanding of the limits imposed by apps. Right back at you. It's curious to me that you seem so adamant to defend a behavior was just ruled illegal. Was the judge wrong? How? Thought experiment, if Microsoft tomorrow said they own the Windows platform, and they have the right to a cut of all transactions done inside apps on the Windows platform, would you be ok with applications like say Steam or Epic Games Store being required to use the Windows Store to process payments and give some percent to Microsoft? If this is not ok how is it different from Apple's policy for iOS?

dkonofalski 5y ago

No, it's not. Amazon's App Store application doesn't exist without the Apple ecosystem and Apple's customers. Amazon is allowed to advertise anything they want outside of the Apple App Store, including on Android and any other platforms not run by Apple. The rule is only about advertising for other services within the platform that Apple runs. They absolutely can communicate with their customers but that can't advertise to Apple's customers to promote circumventing the App Store's systems. My example isn't at all like what you're describing unless Amazon's app is outside of the Apple ecosystem. There is literally no business that allows companies using their property to advertise their competitors. Your example about a direct ordering phone number is not analogous at all. A better example would be a restaurant allowing DoorDash to post advertisements but specifying that they can only advertise for their own services, not promote other companies who pay DoorDash more for priority. Your whole argument is based on an incorrect understanding of the agreements made to use the App Store and an inaccurate understanding of the limits imposed by apps. I am not using the example of a competitor advertising in the competitions app. I'm using the example of someone advertising on a business's property or platform to advertise a different platform.

VenTatsu 5y ago
> No, it's not. Amazon's App Store application doesn't exist without the Apple ecosystem and Apple's customers. When did I talk about Amazon's App Store? This is about Amazon's Apps on Apple's App store and on iOS. > Amazon is allowed to advertise anything they want outside of the Apple App Store True, I mentioned that and rebutted it in my last post. > The rule is only about advertising for other services within the platform that Apple runs False, at least in the respect that the Kindle Store is not a platform Apple runs, Apple runs the installations system on iOS, they use that to extend their reach into what other companies run. > They absolutely can communicate with their customers ... Amazon can, to use the Kindle app you must have an Amazon account created outside the app, they have the right to communicate outside the app because that point of contact originated outside the app. Any one not already the size of Amazon that starts as an app on iOS is not allowed to try to extend that relationship outside of iOS. That is why a federal judge felt it necessary to rule that Apple's behavior was against California law. > There is literally no business that allows companies using their property to advertise their competitors. Except news papers, TV stations, movie studios, ISPs, phone companies, etc. All of these allow competitors to buy add space on their platforms, or use their platforms to communicate competing offers. Did you know movie studios once refused to let theaters run their movies if the previews/trailers were for any movies not from the same studio? Courts put a stop to that, now at most a studio can require that some but not all of the previews/trailers be for their films. Back when long distance phone companies were a thing people cared about in the US, AT&T tried to block their competitors from cold calling companies to get them to switch, they also lost that case. Yes, none of these companies want to allow their competitors to use their platform, but none of them are allowed by law to stop it. > Your example about a direct ordering phone number is not analogous at all. It's not analogous to Apple preventing Amazon from providing links in the app to Amazon's own web site? How? This is the point of the similarity, you use the Doordash app or website (you use the Apple App Store), you order food (you download an app), when you get your food there is a menu inside that suggests you order direct, maybe even including coupons that give a discount on pickup orders (you open the app and when you pick something to buy you are provided a link to their site instead of an App Store button). Can you explain where I'm going wrong on that analogy? I know it's not 100% the same, it's an analogy, they are never exactly the same. > Your whole argument is based on an incorrect understanding of the agreements made to use the App Store and an inaccurate understanding of the limits imposed by apps. Right back at you. It's curious to me that you seem so adamant to defend a behavior was just ruled illegal. Was the judge wrong? How? Thought experiment, if Microsoft tomorrow said they own the Windows platform, and they have the right to a cut of all transactions done inside apps on the Windows platform, would you be ok with applications like say Steam or Epic Games Store being required to use the Windows Store to process payments and give some percent to Microsoft? If this is not ok how is it different from Apple's policy for iOS?