18 ms·

Judge orders Apple to allow external payment options for App Store

389 points by dkobia 5y ago

dragosmocrii 5y ago
AAPL probably going down tomorrow
bubblethink 5y ago
"There have to be guardrails and guidelines to protect children." Why must everything be so boring and predictable?
- lucasyvas 5y ago
  Children could use less protection, to be honest. We barely give them any room to think for themselves.
  - 0x4d464d48 5y ago
    Won't somebody PLEASE think for the children!
- jollybean 5y ago
  The web itself is free of restrictions it's kind of odd anyone could reasonably try to use those arguments.
1cvmask 5y ago
Unless you can sideload apps, Apple will punish and reward based on whether they use Apple payments or not. They can just keep you in review purgatory every time there is a new release for example.
- friedman23 5y ago
  There was a video by linus tech tips recently that pointed out how ridiculous the term side loading is. It's installing not side loading and we've been doing it for years on windows and mac. None of us would use Mac OS based laptops if they made it so that you could only install apps from the app store. But somehow installing apps from sources outside the iOS app store on iphones is a terrible and dangerous experience?
  - dagmx 5y ago
    Side loading as a term makes complete sense because you're using side channels to load it. It doesn't have a negative connotation, it's an accurate term.
    - friedman23 5y ago
      Side loading doesn't have a negative connotation? Just a quick search on side loading and I see a million articles on how side loading only benefits criminals. Meanwhile I just side loaded chrome on my new macbook, whoops.
    - rezonant 5y ago
      It's only accurate because they made the "non-side ways" loading the one true method. On Windows, Linux and Mac OS side loading is just called "installing", and it isn't demonized. There's good reasons to lock down by default for the "average" user, but making it impossible to escape that lock down without modifying your software elicitly is silly at best and deleterious at worst.
  - hamilyon2 5y ago
    A true Orwellian word indeed.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jensensbutton 5y ago
Apple arguing developers need to be protected from those same developers newfound ability to add links to external payment options. That's... quite a take.
syspec 5y ago
This article is continuing to spread FUD, the judge _explicitly_ said Apple is still entitled to it's 30% commission even payment took place outside the store for a digital good used in the game. Apple is still entitled to a 30% commission. The commission is the licensing fee for Apple's I From the court ruling: > At step three, Epic Games has identified no suitable less restrictive alternative for Apple’s use of IAP based on the current record. The only alternative that Epic Games proposes is that Apple be barred from restricting or deterring in any way “the use of in-app payment processors other than IAP.” This proposed alternative is deficient for several reasons: > First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. > Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission > Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property.
- rvz 5y ago
  Absolutely correct. The Verge and other media reporters continues to omit this important note from the ruling itself from [0]: Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional [0] (p68) Seems like The Verge loves to spin their way into misinformation since they know that the majority of readers won't read the ruling text at all. For those that don't have time, it's better to watch the Hoeg Law video explaining the ruling in full depth. [1] [0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631-apple-epic-judgement https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631-apple-epic-... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43CMV8KIs3E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43CMV8KIs3E
- gpm 5y ago
  You are misstating the ruling. It does not say that they are still entitled to the 30% commission, it says that they could choose to charge it for third party payments. The difference is that the former would be the judge saying that the existing contract entitles them to that (something the judge did not rule on), while the latter just means that they could legally make a contract that did entitle them to that.
vfclists 5y ago
How many years of research does Apple require to check the consequences of allowing external payments? > “You haven’t asked for additional time. You’ve asked for an injunction which would effectively take years,” she said. “You asked for an across-the-board stay which could take 3, 4, 5 years.”
judge2020 5y ago
What's unclear is is SafariViewController[0] qualifies as an external link under the ruling, or if it required the act of the foreground app changing to a browser app. From the ruling[1]: > The Developer Agreement prohibits third party in-app purchasing systems other than Apple’s IAP. The Court did not enjoin that provision but rather enjoined the prohibition to communicate external alternatives and to allow links to those external sites. I also wonder if just another app would work, eg. perhaps the shopify app[2] could be used as a payment broker in the future. 0: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/800893255091879969/907818690567872572/2048.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/800893255091879969/90... 1: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.830.0_7.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36... 2: https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/shop-package-order-tracker/id1223471316 https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/shop-package-order-tracker/id1...
leptoniscool 5y ago
Last year Apple made ~64 billion dollars from the App Store. Presumably this will decrease significantly if other payment options are possible, due to increased competition. Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/apples-app-store-had-gross-sales-around-64-billion-in-2020.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/apples-app-store-had-gross-s...
- Forge36 5y ago
  Looks to be ~2/3 of the total profit yearly profit? Where is that profit going currently?
  - jhj 5y ago
    That's an estimated gross sales figure, not Apple's take of that or profit.
friedman23 5y ago
Amazing, this is a huge win for consumers and developers.
- rodgerd 5y ago
  No, not at all. At the moment I can be sure that I can cancel a subscription without, for example, being required to call a US telephone number, as is the norm for subscription sites not using Apple. It's a huge win for developers who want to fuck over consumers. Consumers? Not so much.
  - thrwn_frthr_awy 5y ago
    I agree and it is an unpopular option on HN, but I think it is a feature that I know can use any app in the App Store without having to give out my email. For me, the consumer choice is made when choosing whether I want that walled garden experience with iOS or a more flexible experience with Android.
  - friedman23 5y ago
    I don't think you understand the true cost apple is imposing on everyone involved in the ios ecosystem. That 30% cut apple takes means you are paying 43% more for apps than you would have if apple didn't take their cut. I'd rather deal with a shitty subscription cancellation experience than pay 43% more money for something. edit: also I reject the idea that using third party payment processors will result in a bad experience. 99% of apps will use paypal for payment processing and managing subscriptions on paypal is super easy.
    - syspec 5y ago
      And if the 30% commission is removed, the prices will remain exactly the same.
      - spiderice 5y ago
        Not if you believe in the free market driving the prices down. If app A keeps the price the same, app B will undercut them because app A is charging 43% more than they now need to to make a profit.
candiddevmike 5y ago
Wonder how someone could get this ruling applied to Google Play... In other news, I spent some time this month implementing monthly billing subscriptions. Stripe was easy and I could rapidly test almost every scenario (cancellations, deferments, non payment,el etc). Apple and Google? Good luck, you basically have to test in production to figure out all the corner cases for your users. As a solo dev, being able to choose my payment processor would let me focus on delivering real features and value instead of app store toil.
- jsnell 5y ago
  They have already done that in South Korea, in response to a new law, but in a way that I'd bet you're not happy with: https://developers-kr.googleblog.com/2021/11/enabling-alternative-billing-in-korea-en.html https://developers-kr.googleblog.com/2021/11/enabling-altern... It seems likely that Apple will apply a similar strategy.
  - candiddevmike 5y ago
    Seems like they still require Google Play billing as an option, so I wouldn't see any benefit here as I'd have to support all of the processors still. Though if they're going to do that, at least let the devs show the prices to the user (e.g. I can charge ~12-27% less using Stripe). People can then "vote with their wallets" on which method is more convenient.
    - jsnell 5y ago
      That's the thing: it would not be 12-27% less. Using another payment provider only chops off 4% points from Google's cut, the remaining 11-26% is considered a "service fee" unrelated to payments processing, and still has to be paid. And it's what Apple will do as well.
      - candiddevmike 5y ago
        Ah, I missed that at the bottom. That's quite the cut to distribute my 9MB APK.
ctdonath 5y ago
Apple takes 30% for the purchase of an app. Whether 30% is reasonable may be debatable, but that they get a cut is not (their App Store). The post-purchase 30% cut amounts to adding or enabling content/function to the app post-purchase, meaning developers can put off charging users for some of the app until later, at which point it's fair for Apple to still get their cut - lest developers (like Epic) give away the app and effectively charge for the app later to bypass the 30% cut. E-books are, in a reasonable sense, part of Amazon's Kindle app. Movies are part of a video rental app. Power-ups and other features are part of the Fortnite app. As Apple is only charging for what is in essence part of an app, not for non-app stuff like chairs or rides or food, it's a not-unreasonable attempt to prevent developers from giving away apps and charging later to avoid the 30% App Store service charge. Seems this is a moment that Apple, Google, and others really need to win, lest practically all apps be "free with in-app purchase to do anything meaningful".
- jb1991 5y ago
  Starting a year or so ago, for most developers, Apple takes 15%, not 30%.
  - ctpide 5y ago
    I would assume that a large chuck of the revenue is generated by few highly successful developers, for which they continue to charge 30%
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      B-but those are corporations! You can't have empathy for anyone who revenues more than 1 million a year, right?
- wvenable 5y ago
  > Whether 30% is reasonable may be debatable, but that they get a cut is not (their App Store). It doesn't have to be a "cut". They could simply charge developers to host in their store. Because they started with this model doesn't mean it's the de-facto correct or moral option. AWS doesn't charge for servers based on how much a company makes using their resources, they charge for the resources used. Why should Apple be any different?
jlrubin 5y ago
looks like bitcoin/lightning iaps coming to ios soon :)
- dwaite 5y ago
  This ruling does not allow for alternative IAP.
square_usual 5y ago
A few things people seem to be missing in this thread: - This ruling doesn't allow for supplanting IAPs, as the it only prevents Apple from prohibiting external links to alternatives. So apps still aren't allowed to have in-app payment alternatives, they can have a link to something else, and AFAICT they can still mandate an IAP option should be present if the app has such a link, like they do with "Sign in with Apple". - If that sounds familiar, that's because it is: this isn't too far off from the agreement Apple reached with the JFTC that allowed "reader apps" (think Netflix, Kindle, Spotify) to have a link to an external website to set up user accounts: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/09/japan-fair-trade-commission-closes-app-store-investigation/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/09/japan-fair-trade-comm... - This is extremely unlikely to hurt Apple's profit margins all that much, because the judge also rules that Apple was entitled to a licensing fee, which it could still claim for payments made outside Apple's IAP system. This point is probably why Apple is fighting the ruling, because with external links they might have to put a lot of effort into getting their cut, as opposed to what Google did with their payment alternatives - i.e. adding a "service fee" to in app transactions but allowing alternative payment services. (This might not apply to the exception carved out for "reader apps") Essentially, nobody wins. Even in the best case scenario, Apple will probably keep a significant portion (but not all) of its cut, developers still have to pay through the nose and users will probably stick with Apple's IAP if the provider can't make a significant difference, and can't sideload apps that the App Store won't allow. Yay!
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  > what Google did with their payment alternatives - i.e. adding a "service fee" to in app transactions but allowing alternative payment services. As of September 2021, all apps on the Play Store must use Google's mobile payment platform exclusively, and developers can't link to alternative payment methods.
  - square_usual 5y ago
    That point is specifically re: the changes Google is making in South Korea due to their new law: https://developers-kr.googleblog.com/2021/11/enabling-alternative-billing-in-korea-en.html https://developers-kr.googleblog.com/2021/11/enabling-altern...
jollybean 5y ago
We need to end these platform monopolies now. When the electric companies own the grid and take a cut of the toaster because you're using 'their electricity' it's bad. Separation of concerns is good for everyone in the long run.
- juanani 5y ago
  But they provide security so your toaster doesn't burn down the house of your children, please think of them next time you have common sense.
aseerdbnarng 5y ago
"It is exceedingly complicated. There have to be guardrails and guidelines to protect children, to protect developers, to protect consumers" I propose a heuristic that whenever 'protect children' gets used there's a high chance its a load of bull
- DeathArrow 5y ago
  Also, we have to think if complying wouldn't benefit drug dealers.
- Angostura 5y ago
  I mean, that's all fun and games until your child chokes on toy with pieces that fit into their windpipe, or manage to drink bleach because we were sceptical about child-proof tops.
- threatofrain 5y ago
  Apple Pay does protect people. It's one of the most minimal-knowledge payment protocols out there, and if everyone in Target had used Apple Pay, then there would have never been that credit card leak scandal. Target wouldn't even have the information to leak. I can only hope that Apple Pay is supplanted by something with more privacy and not less.
collaborative 5y ago
Ever since I upgraded the Google billing API to the latest version a large % of IAPs fail (especially for users from 3rd world countries). Just wish I could offer CC, paypal etc. Let the user decide. Some users don't even have a Google Play payment method
DeathArrow 5y ago
Apple and Google transformed mobile into a poisonous experience. Apart from being constantly spied, you don't get to decide what you can do with your own device. You can't install software unless is approved by them and if it is, you have to also pay them. As a developer, if you target iOS and Android your app should not compete with their apps, you have to get it approved and you have to get them a 30% cut for nothing. Why can't installing software on mobiles work exactly like on desktop?
- nyxaiur 5y ago
  I guess you haven't used windows mobile until 6.0 or palm os until 5.x before. Because that was mobile before iOS and android you can talk as much shit as you want but pretend there was a rose garden before.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  But but but malware! People love these shiny handcuffs imposed on them, because they keep them safe from harming themselves! Even here I've had a lot of arguments with people who say it is a very good thing. And of course they don't care about people in countries like Russia or China where the Apple submits to government requests to remove certain apps - leaving their users unable to run them at all.
  - jve 5y ago
    > But but but malware! It's a very valid statement, yet you make it sound like sarcasm. Consumer can makes choice by choosing platform after all (even niche Android distributions if you are after freedom). Ofcourse apple may be too tight by requiring to even identify test devices when you develop apps and no option to install .apk like on Android.
    - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
      Imagine a phone virus that jumped from phone to phone over WiFi or BlueTooth and keylogged and screen grabbed everything. Imagine mobile ransomware. If the OS is hackable - and they always are, without strong security - all kinds of nasty things become possible. I do think devs should get a bit more freedom on iOS for testing, but the consumer side is fine as it is. I remember the virus wars of late 90s and early 2000s when you couldn't do anything on a Windows PC without worrying that it was going to be hacked - and most were. There were email vectors, web vectors, PDF vectors, Office macro vectors, banner ad vectors, even antivirus software vectors. It was a complete shit show. The hacking back then was relatively harmless. But now that people run their entire lives from these devices, the modern equivalent would be an economic disaster.
tibbydudeza 5y ago
About time !!!!.
WA 5y ago
One thing I haven't seen talked about much is the change to section 5.1.1 of the App Store Guidelines. While it is now allowed to contact users through other means (email) about alternative payment methods, Apple tries to limit apps from obtaining contact information in the first place. See section (v) and (x) in 5.1.1: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#data-collection-and-storage https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#dat...
bhelkey 5y ago
Because regulation coming in from multiple places, I suggest adding "US" to the title.
farmin 5y ago
I've been more delibrate lately looking at how some services I am familiar with deal with the app store. It seems there are many businesses that make the app 'free' in the app store but require a login once installed. One example is Agworld. The login is only available if they are subscribed through the website. Clearly Apple have been allowing this for a while. I guess you just can't have a link for payment in the free app but its ok to ask people to login with some external credentials?

389 points by dkobia 5y ago

dragosmocrii 5y ago

AAPL probably going down tomorrow

bubblethink 5y ago

"There have to be guardrails and guidelines to protect children." Why must everything be so boring and predictable?

lucasyvas 5y ago
Children could use less protection, to be honest. We barely give them any room to think for themselves.
- 0x4d464d48 5y ago
  Won't somebody PLEASE think for the children!
jollybean 5y ago
The web itself is free of restrictions it's kind of odd anyone could reasonably try to use those arguments.

1cvmask 5y ago

Unless you can sideload apps, Apple will punish and reward based on whether they use Apple payments or not. They can just keep you in review purgatory every time there is a new release for example.

friedman23 5y ago
There was a video by linus tech tips recently that pointed out how ridiculous the term side loading is. It's installing not side loading and we've been doing it for years on windows and mac. None of us would use Mac OS based laptops if they made it so that you could only install apps from the app store. But somehow installing apps from sources outside the iOS app store on iphones is a terrible and dangerous experience?
- dagmx 5y ago
  Side loading as a term makes complete sense because you're using side channels to load it. It doesn't have a negative connotation, it's an accurate term.
  - friedman23 5y ago
    Side loading doesn't have a negative connotation? Just a quick search on side loading and I see a million articles on how side loading only benefits criminals. Meanwhile I just side loaded chrome on my new macbook, whoops.
  - rezonant 5y ago
    It's only accurate because they made the "non-side ways" loading the one true method. On Windows, Linux and Mac OS side loading is just called "installing", and it isn't demonized. There's good reasons to lock down by default for the "average" user, but making it impossible to escape that lock down without modifying your software elicitly is silly at best and deleterious at worst.
- hamilyon2 5y ago
  A true Orwellian word indeed.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

jensensbutton 5y ago

Apple arguing developers need to be protected from those same developers newfound ability to add links to external payment options. That's... quite a take.

syspec 5y ago

This article is continuing to spread FUD, the judge _explicitly_ said Apple is still entitled to it's 30% commission even payment took place outside the store for a digital good used in the game. Apple is still entitled to a 30% commission. The commission is the licensing fee for Apple's I From the court ruling: > At step three, Epic Games has identified no suitable less restrictive alternative for Apple’s use of IAP based on the current record. The only alternative that Epic Games proposes is that Apple be barred from restricting or deterring in any way “the use of in-app payment processors other than IAP.” This proposed alternative is deficient for several reasons: > First, and most significant, as discussed in the findings of facts, IAP is the method by which Apple collects its licensing fee from developers for the use of Apple’s intellectual property. > Even in the absence of IAP, Apple could still charge a commission on developers. It would simply be more difficult for Apple to collect that commission > Indeed, while the Court finds no basis for the specific rate chosen by Apple (i.e., the 30% rate) based on the record, the Court still concludes that Apple is entitled to some compensation for use of its intellectual property.

rvz 5y ago
Absolutely correct. The Verge and other media reporters continues to omit this important note from the ruling itself from [0]: Under all models, Apple would be entitled to a commission or licensing fee, even if IAP was optional [0] (p68) Seems like The Verge loves to spin their way into misinformation since they know that the majority of readers won't read the ruling text at all. For those that don't have time, it's better to watch the Hoeg Law video explaining the ruling in full depth. [1] [0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631-apple-epic-judgement https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21060631-apple-epic-... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43CMV8KIs3E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43CMV8KIs3E
gpm 5y ago
You are misstating the ruling. It does not say that they are still entitled to the 30% commission, it says that they could choose to charge it for third party payments. The difference is that the former would be the judge saying that the existing contract entitles them to that (something the judge did not rule on), while the latter just means that they could legally make a contract that did entitle them to that.

vfclists 5y ago

How many years of research does Apple require to check the consequences of allowing external payments? > “You haven’t asked for additional time. You’ve asked for an injunction which would effectively take years,” she said. “You asked for an across-the-board stay which could take 3, 4, 5 years.”

judge2020 5y ago

What's unclear is is SafariViewController[0] qualifies as an external link under the ruling, or if it required the act of the foreground app changing to a browser app. From the ruling[1]: > The Developer Agreement prohibits third party in-app purchasing systems other than Apple’s IAP. The Court did not enjoin that provision but rather enjoined the prohibition to communicate external alternatives and to allow links to those external sites. I also wonder if just another app would work, eg. perhaps the shopify app[2] could be used as a payment broker in the future. 0: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/800893255091879969/907818690567872572/2048.png https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/800893255091879969/90... 1: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.364265/gov.uscourts.cand.364265.830.0_7.pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36... 2: https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/shop-package-order-tracker/id1223471316 https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/shop-package-order-tracker/id1...

leptoniscool 5y ago

Last year Apple made ~64 billion dollars from the App Store. Presumably this will decrease significantly if other payment options are possible, due to increased competition. Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/apples-app-store-had-gross-sales-around-64-billion-in-2020.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/08/apples-app-store-had-gross-s...

Forge36 5y ago
Looks to be ~2/3 of the total profit yearly profit? Where is that profit going currently?
- jhj 5y ago
  That's an estimated gross sales figure, not Apple's take of that or profit.

friedman23 5y ago

Amazing, this is a huge win for consumers and developers.

rodgerd 5y ago
No, not at all. At the moment I can be sure that I can cancel a subscription without, for example, being required to call a US telephone number, as is the norm for subscription sites not using Apple. It's a huge win for developers who want to fuck over consumers. Consumers? Not so much.
- thrwn_frthr_awy 5y ago
  I agree and it is an unpopular option on HN, but I think it is a feature that I know can use any app in the App Store without having to give out my email. For me, the consumer choice is made when choosing whether I want that walled garden experience with iOS or a more flexible experience with Android.
- friedman23 5y ago
  I don't think you understand the true cost apple is imposing on everyone involved in the ios ecosystem. That 30% cut apple takes means you are paying 43% more for apps than you would have if apple didn't take their cut. I'd rather deal with a shitty subscription cancellation experience than pay 43% more money for something. edit: also I reject the idea that using third party payment processors will result in a bad experience. 99% of apps will use paypal for payment processing and managing subscriptions on paypal is super easy.
  - syspec 5y ago
    And if the 30% commission is removed, the prices will remain exactly the same.
    - spiderice 5y ago
      Not if you believe in the free market driving the prices down. If app A keeps the price the same, app B will undercut them because app A is charging 43% more than they now need to to make a profit.

candiddevmike 5y ago

Wonder how someone could get this ruling applied to Google Play... In other news, I spent some time this month implementing monthly billing subscriptions. Stripe was easy and I could rapidly test almost every scenario (cancellations, deferments, non payment,el etc). Apple and Google? Good luck, you basically have to test in production to figure out all the corner cases for your users. As a solo dev, being able to choose my payment processor would let me focus on delivering real features and value instead of app store toil.

jsnell 5y ago
They have already done that in South Korea, in response to a new law, but in a way that I'd bet you're not happy with: https://developers-kr.googleblog.com/2021/11/enabling-alternative-billing-in-korea-en.html https://developers-kr.googleblog.com/2021/11/enabling-altern... It seems likely that Apple will apply a similar strategy.
- candiddevmike 5y ago
  Seems like they still require Google Play billing as an option, so I wouldn't see any benefit here as I'd have to support all of the processors still. Though if they're going to do that, at least let the devs show the prices to the user (e.g. I can charge ~12-27% less using Stripe). People can then "vote with their wallets" on which method is more convenient.
  - jsnell 5y ago
    That's the thing: it would not be 12-27% less. Using another payment provider only chops off 4% points from Google's cut, the remaining 11-26% is considered a "service fee" unrelated to payments processing, and still has to be paid. And it's what Apple will do as well.
    - candiddevmike 5y ago
      Ah, I missed that at the bottom. That's quite the cut to distribute my 9MB APK.

ctdonath 5y ago

Apple takes 30% for the purchase of an app. Whether 30% is reasonable may be debatable, but that they get a cut is not (their App Store). The post-purchase 30% cut amounts to adding or enabling content/function to the app post-purchase, meaning developers can put off charging users for some of the app until later, at which point it's fair for Apple to still get their cut - lest developers (like Epic) give away the app and effectively charge for the app later to bypass the 30% cut. E-books are, in a reasonable sense, part of Amazon's Kindle app. Movies are part of a video rental app. Power-ups and other features are part of the Fortnite app. As Apple is only charging for what is in essence part of an app, not for non-app stuff like chairs or rides or food, it's a not-unreasonable attempt to prevent developers from giving away apps and charging later to avoid the 30% App Store service charge. Seems this is a moment that Apple, Google, and others really need to win, lest practically all apps be "free with in-app purchase to do anything meaningful".

jb1991 5y ago
Starting a year or so ago, for most developers, Apple takes 15%, not 30%.
- ctpide 5y ago
  I would assume that a large chuck of the revenue is generated by few highly successful developers, for which they continue to charge 30%
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    B-but those are corporations! You can't have empathy for anyone who revenues more than 1 million a year, right?
wvenable 5y ago
> Whether 30% is reasonable may be debatable, but that they get a cut is not (their App Store). It doesn't have to be a "cut". They could simply charge developers to host in their store. Because they started with this model doesn't mean it's the de-facto correct or moral option. AWS doesn't charge for servers based on how much a company makes using their resources, they charge for the resources used. Why should Apple be any different?

jlrubin 5y ago

looks like bitcoin/lightning iaps coming to ios soon :)

dwaite 5y ago
This ruling does not allow for alternative IAP.

square_usual 5y ago

A few things people seem to be missing in this thread: - This ruling doesn't allow for supplanting IAPs, as the it only prevents Apple from prohibiting external links to alternatives. So apps still aren't allowed to have in-app payment alternatives, they can have a link to something else, and AFAICT they can still mandate an IAP option should be present if the app has such a link, like they do with "Sign in with Apple". - If that sounds familiar, that's because it is: this isn't too far off from the agreement Apple reached with the JFTC that allowed "reader apps" (think Netflix, Kindle, Spotify) to have a link to an external website to set up user accounts: https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/09/japan-fair-trade-commission-closes-app-store-investigation/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/09/japan-fair-trade-comm... - This is extremely unlikely to hurt Apple's profit margins all that much, because the judge also rules that Apple was entitled to a licensing fee, which it could still claim for payments made outside Apple's IAP system. This point is probably why Apple is fighting the ruling, because with external links they might have to put a lot of effort into getting their cut, as opposed to what Google did with their payment alternatives - i.e. adding a "service fee" to in app transactions but allowing alternative payment services. (This might not apply to the exception carved out for "reader apps") Essentially, nobody wins. Even in the best case scenario, Apple will probably keep a significant portion (but not all) of its cut, developers still have to pay through the nose and users will probably stick with Apple's IAP if the provider can't make a significant difference, and can't sideload apps that the App Store won't allow. Yay!

heavyset_go 5y ago
> what Google did with their payment alternatives - i.e. adding a "service fee" to in app transactions but allowing alternative payment services. As of September 2021, all apps on the Play Store must use Google's mobile payment platform exclusively, and developers can't link to alternative payment methods.
- square_usual 5y ago
  That point is specifically re: the changes Google is making in South Korea due to their new law: https://developers-kr.googleblog.com/2021/11/enabling-alternative-billing-in-korea-en.html https://developers-kr.googleblog.com/2021/11/enabling-altern...

jollybean 5y ago

We need to end these platform monopolies now. When the electric companies own the grid and take a cut of the toaster because you're using 'their electricity' it's bad. Separation of concerns is good for everyone in the long run.

juanani 5y ago
But they provide security so your toaster doesn't burn down the house of your children, please think of them next time you have common sense.

aseerdbnarng 5y ago

"It is exceedingly complicated. There have to be guardrails and guidelines to protect children, to protect developers, to protect consumers" I propose a heuristic that whenever 'protect children' gets used there's a high chance its a load of bull

DeathArrow 5y ago
Also, we have to think if complying wouldn't benefit drug dealers.
Angostura 5y ago
I mean, that's all fun and games until your child chokes on toy with pieces that fit into their windpipe, or manage to drink bleach because we were sceptical about child-proof tops.
threatofrain 5y ago
Apple Pay does protect people. It's one of the most minimal-knowledge payment protocols out there, and if everyone in Target had used Apple Pay, then there would have never been that credit card leak scandal. Target wouldn't even have the information to leak. I can only hope that Apple Pay is supplanted by something with more privacy and not less.

collaborative 5y ago

Ever since I upgraded the Google billing API to the latest version a large % of IAPs fail (especially for users from 3rd world countries). Just wish I could offer CC, paypal etc. Let the user decide. Some users don't even have a Google Play payment method

DeathArrow 5y ago

Apple and Google transformed mobile into a poisonous experience. Apart from being constantly spied, you don't get to decide what you can do with your own device. You can't install software unless is approved by them and if it is, you have to also pay them. As a developer, if you target iOS and Android your app should not compete with their apps, you have to get it approved and you have to get them a 30% cut for nothing. Why can't installing software on mobiles work exactly like on desktop?

nyxaiur 5y ago
I guess you haven't used windows mobile until 6.0 or palm os until 5.x before. Because that was mobile before iOS and android you can talk as much shit as you want but pretend there was a rose garden before.
Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
But but but malware! People love these shiny handcuffs imposed on them, because they keep them safe from harming themselves! Even here I've had a lot of arguments with people who say it is a very good thing. And of course they don't care about people in countries like Russia or China where the Apple submits to government requests to remove certain apps - leaving their users unable to run them at all.
- jve 5y ago
  > But but but malware! It's a very valid statement, yet you make it sound like sarcasm. Consumer can makes choice by choosing platform after all (even niche Android distributions if you are after freedom). Ofcourse apple may be too tight by requiring to even identify test devices when you develop apps and no option to install .apk like on Android.
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    Imagine a phone virus that jumped from phone to phone over WiFi or BlueTooth and keylogged and screen grabbed everything. Imagine mobile ransomware. If the OS is hackable - and they always are, without strong security - all kinds of nasty things become possible. I do think devs should get a bit more freedom on iOS for testing, but the consumer side is fine as it is. I remember the virus wars of late 90s and early 2000s when you couldn't do anything on a Windows PC without worrying that it was going to be hacked - and most were. There were email vectors, web vectors, PDF vectors, Office macro vectors, banner ad vectors, even antivirus software vectors. It was a complete shit show. The hacking back then was relatively harmless. But now that people run their entire lives from these devices, the modern equivalent would be an economic disaster.

tibbydudeza 5y ago

About time !!!!.

WA 5y ago

One thing I haven't seen talked about much is the change to section 5.1.1 of the App Store Guidelines. While it is now allowed to contact users through other means (email) about alternative payment methods, Apple tries to limit apps from obtaining contact information in the first place. See section (v) and (x) in 5.1.1: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#data-collection-and-storage https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#dat...

bhelkey 5y ago

Because regulation coming in from multiple places, I suggest adding "US" to the title.

farmin 5y ago

I've been more delibrate lately looking at how some services I am familiar with deal with the app store. It seems there are many businesses that make the app 'free' in the app store but require a login once installed. One example is Agworld. The login is only available if they are subscribed through the website. Clearly Apple have been allowing this for a while. I guess you just can't have a link for payment in the free app but its ok to ask people to login with some external credentials?