3 ms·

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 externa

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...
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    Thanks for the clarification, that looks like a good law.
- dartharva 5y ago
  This is not true. I am running several apps here in India that use their own alternative payment methods (mainly UPI, India's ingenious mobile payments platform) for in-app purchases in Android. Hell, even Google Pay itself is based on UPI in India.
  - astatine 5y ago
    I would go further- I haven't used a single app which required me to use Google's payment method. Every app allows a direct external IAP.
    - dwaite 5y ago
      What's an _external_ IAP?
  - Hamuko 5y ago
    >Any existing app that is currently using an alternative in-app billing system will need to remove it to comply with this update. For these apps, we are offering an extended grace period until September 30, 2021 to make any required changes. >New and existing apps submitted by developers based in India will have until March 31, 2022 to comply, and new and existing apps submitted by developers based in South Korea will have until September 30, 2021 to comply. https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/10281818 https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    From here[1]: > New and existing apps submitted by developers based in India will have until March 31, 2022 to comply, and new and existing apps submitted by developers based in South Korea will have until September 30, 2021 to comply. You have until 2022. If you're dealing with physical goods or bill payments, then you might be exempt. [1] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/10281818?hl=en https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
    - tinus_hn 5y ago
- vkazanov 5y ago
  This is wrong. As of November 2021 in UK I have multiple well-known apps that make it possible to avoid using Google payment systems: Nero Express, Weatherspoon. These are just off the top of my head.
  - heavyset_go 5y ago
    From Google[1]: > 1. Developers charging for apps and downloads from Google Play must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment. > 2. Play-distributed apps must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment if they require or accept payment for access to features or services, including any app functionality, digital content or goods. > 3. Apps other than those described in 2(b) may not lead users to a payment method other than Google Play's billing system. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, leading users to other payment methods via: > An app’s listing in Google Play; In-app promotions related to purchasable content; In-app webviews, buttons, links, messaging, advertisements or other calls to action; and In-app user interface flows, including account creation or sign-up flows, that lead users from an app to a payment method other than Google Play's billing system as part of those flows. [1] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/9858738?visit_id=637721252321039867-1988657631&rd=1 https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
  - camhart 5y ago
    Simply because it's not enforced doesn't mean it's not against the developer agreement. This is part of the issue--selective enforcement.
  - lozenge 5y ago
    That's a café and a pub. We're talking about digital goods. Physical goods are obviously excepted otherwise there would be no Amazon or Uber app.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
raydev 5y ago
> 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 A lot of the commentary on Twitter has missed this important point. People were quick to dunk on Apple's assertion that allowing links would require massive amounts of engineering effort [1], because on its face it does sound stupid: just let iOS app developers link out to external purchase options, right? Nope. Apple still has the authority to take money from developers even if they are no longer using Apple's payment services. That's where the engineering effort is going. To make the external linking process as onerous as legally possible for consumers and developers. [1]: https://twitter.com/thedextriarchy/status/1458195659727810565 https://twitter.com/thedextriarchy/status/145819565972781056...

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...
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  Thanks for the clarification, that looks like a good law.
dartharva 5y ago
This is not true. I am running several apps here in India that use their own alternative payment methods (mainly UPI, India's ingenious mobile payments platform) for in-app purchases in Android. Hell, even Google Pay itself is based on UPI in India.
- astatine 5y ago
  I would go further- I haven't used a single app which required me to use Google's payment method. Every app allows a direct external IAP.
  - dwaite 5y ago
    What's an _external_ IAP?
- Hamuko 5y ago
  >Any existing app that is currently using an alternative in-app billing system will need to remove it to comply with this update. For these apps, we are offering an extended grace period until September 30, 2021 to make any required changes. >New and existing apps submitted by developers based in India will have until March 31, 2022 to comply, and new and existing apps submitted by developers based in South Korea will have until September 30, 2021 to comply. https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/10281818 https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  From here[1]: > New and existing apps submitted by developers based in India will have until March 31, 2022 to comply, and new and existing apps submitted by developers based in South Korea will have until September 30, 2021 to comply. You have until 2022. If you're dealing with physical goods or bill payments, then you might be exempt. [1] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/10281818?hl=en https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
  - tinus_hn 5y ago
vkazanov 5y ago
This is wrong. As of November 2021 in UK I have multiple well-known apps that make it possible to avoid using Google payment systems: Nero Express, Weatherspoon. These are just off the top of my head.
- heavyset_go 5y ago
  From Google[1]: > 1. Developers charging for apps and downloads from Google Play must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment. > 2. Play-distributed apps must use Google Play's billing system as the method of payment if they require or accept payment for access to features or services, including any app functionality, digital content or goods. > 3. Apps other than those described in 2(b) may not lead users to a payment method other than Google Play's billing system. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, leading users to other payment methods via: > An app’s listing in Google Play; In-app promotions related to purchasable content; In-app webviews, buttons, links, messaging, advertisements or other calls to action; and In-app user interface flows, including account creation or sign-up flows, that lead users from an app to a payment method other than Google Play's billing system as part of those flows. [1] https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/9858738?visit_id=637721252321039867-1988657631&rd=1 https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answ...
- camhart 5y ago
  Simply because it's not enforced doesn't mean it's not against the developer agreement. This is part of the issue--selective enforcement.
- lozenge 5y ago
  That's a café and a pub. We're talking about digital goods. Physical goods are obviously excepted otherwise there would be no Amazon or Uber app.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

raydev 5y ago

> 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 A lot of the commentary on Twitter has missed this important point. People were quick to dunk on Apple's assertion that allowing links would require massive amounts of engineering effort [1], because on its face it does sound stupid: just let iOS app developers link out to external purchase options, right? Nope. Apple still has the authority to take money from developers even if they are no longer using Apple's payment services. That's where the engineering effort is going. To make the external linking process as onerous as legally possible for consumers and developers. [1]: https://twitter.com/thedextriarchy/status/1458195659727810565 https://twitter.com/thedextriarchy/status/145819565972781056...