4 ms·

Usually schemes like this have terms like “you’re not allowed to offer a cheaper price outside the ecosystem”.

neongreen 2y ago
My understanding from reading the Apple v Epic court documents is that Apple is unique in that it doesn’t force cheaper prices outside the ecosystem. I might be wrong though.
- dopamean 2y ago
  This has got to be helpful in arguing in court that there's nothing wrong with the apple tax.
- alwa 2y ago
  I vaguely recall them imposing an anti-steering kind of provision, though, didn’t they? Where you can do what you want on your own channels, but you can’t tip off the iOS user to that fact at the point of sale in the app? I vaguely remember the courts being unimpressed with that requirement, and Apple maliciously complying with the judgment by allowing something hilariously minimal and uninformative, like “one tiny in-app link to your main website but you can’t say the word ‘cheaper,’” something along those lines. (Edited to add: yes, sounds like that came post-Epic, and involved an even more Dantean set of caveats than I’d remembered. Among other things, not only can there be no more than one link, but that one link can only ever appear in one place in the app, it can’t “discourage” in-app payment, and its one appearance can’t be during the payment flow: https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/01/16/apples-app-store-anti-steering-rules-are-gone-but-the-replacement-isnt-much-better https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/01/16/apples-app-store-... )
lovethevoid 2y ago
In Apples case they changed that several years ago so you can definitely charge your Apple users more. However you will get the app rejected if you show any sign of showing users that you can buy it cheaper elsewhere than the Apple system. You can potentially get away with it by keeping things vague, but even then you might get rejected for “discouraging the in-app purchase system”. This doesnt apply to the EU in which these specific rules were changed very recently.
- maccard 2y ago
  I don't think that's unreasonable - the user found your app through apple. Imagine if I sold tools, and I hung out in Home Depot next to our tools display telling people "hey, if you buy them directly from me, you can save 30%" I can't see that lasting very long.
  - pests 2y ago
    So if I see an app on TV, go to the app store and download it, somehow I found it through Apple? No, I very obviously saw it on TV and got it from Apple because that's the only way to install native apps on iOS.
  - antonyt 2y ago
    It's arguably unreasonable in a physical space but this is virtual space we're talking about. In more open ecosystems like the web browser, you can literally install extensions that tell you where you can buy something for cheaper. I'm sure Amazon, Walmart, and friends would love for that to be impossible. The virtual space only "belongs" to Apple because they've deliberately walled it off.
  - jasonjayr 2y ago
    In Patreon's case, I don't think the user found the content "through Apple". The customer found the creator, and the creator said "Pay me through Patreon". The user, only having an iOS based device is now trapped by Apple's restrictions on the transaction, which brings dubious benifits to the table.
    - jagged-chisel 2y ago
      Am I not allowed to visit the Patreon website from my iOS device?
      - jasonjayr 2y ago
        As long as Apple provides a standards-compliant web browser, of course you are.

My understanding from reading the Apple v Epic court documents is that Apple is unique in that it doesn’t force cheaper prices outside the ecosystem. I might be wrong though.

dopamean 2y ago
This has got to be helpful in arguing in court that there's nothing wrong with the apple tax.
alwa 2y ago
I vaguely recall them imposing an anti-steering kind of provision, though, didn’t they? Where you can do what you want on your own channels, but you can’t tip off the iOS user to that fact at the point of sale in the app? I vaguely remember the courts being unimpressed with that requirement, and Apple maliciously complying with the judgment by allowing something hilariously minimal and uninformative, like “one tiny in-app link to your main website but you can’t say the word ‘cheaper,’” something along those lines. (Edited to add: yes, sounds like that came post-Epic, and involved an even more Dantean set of caveats than I’d remembered. Among other things, not only can there be no more than one link, but that one link can only ever appear in one place in the app, it can’t “discourage” in-app payment, and its one appearance can’t be during the payment flow: https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/01/16/apples-app-store-anti-steering-rules-are-gone-but-the-replacement-isnt-much-better https://appleinsider.com/articles/24/01/16/apples-app-store-... )

lovethevoid 2y ago

In Apples case they changed that several years ago so you can definitely charge your Apple users more. However you will get the app rejected if you show any sign of showing users that you can buy it cheaper elsewhere than the Apple system. You can potentially get away with it by keeping things vague, but even then you might get rejected for “discouraging the in-app purchase system”. This doesnt apply to the EU in which these specific rules were changed very recently.

maccard 2y ago
I don't think that's unreasonable - the user found your app through apple. Imagine if I sold tools, and I hung out in Home Depot next to our tools display telling people "hey, if you buy them directly from me, you can save 30%" I can't see that lasting very long.
- pests 2y ago
  So if I see an app on TV, go to the app store and download it, somehow I found it through Apple? No, I very obviously saw it on TV and got it from Apple because that's the only way to install native apps on iOS.
- antonyt 2y ago
  It's arguably unreasonable in a physical space but this is virtual space we're talking about. In more open ecosystems like the web browser, you can literally install extensions that tell you where you can buy something for cheaper. I'm sure Amazon, Walmart, and friends would love for that to be impossible. The virtual space only "belongs" to Apple because they've deliberately walled it off.
- jasonjayr 2y ago
  In Patreon's case, I don't think the user found the content "through Apple". The customer found the creator, and the creator said "Pay me through Patreon". The user, only having an iOS based device is now trapped by Apple's restrictions on the transaction, which brings dubious benifits to the table.
  - jagged-chisel 2y ago
    Am I not allowed to visit the Patreon website from my iOS device?
    - jasonjayr 2y ago
      As long as Apple provides a standards-compliant web browser, of course you are.