7 ms·

Apple App Store guidelines remove ban on encouraging external payments in US

463 points by macguillicuddy 1y ago

pk97 1y ago
This should be applicable across the world, not just US.
MiddleEndian 1y ago
They should work with Google and implement a ban on apps that constantly forget your login information.
macguillicuddy 1y ago
>The App Review Guidelines have been updated for compliance with a United States court decision regarding buttons, external links, and other calls to action in apps. These changes affect apps distributed on the United States storefront of the App Store, and are as follows: ... > 3.1.3: The prohibition on encouraging users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase does not apply on the United States storefront. > 3.1.3(a): The External Link Account entitlement is not required for apps on the United States storefront to include buttons, external links, or other calls to action.
nailer 1y ago
Why does it have to be a link to a website? Why can’t the app just let me pay, potentially not using Apple Pay?
- HDThoreaun 1y ago
  because thats what the judge said. She ruled that rules banning in app purchases that dont use apple pay is allowed but the anti steering stuff is not.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
fundatus 1y ago
Sigh, not that I expected anything else from Apple at this point but of course they only change the rules for the US.
- ocdtrekkie 1y ago
  Presumably they are planning to appeal so want to minimize impacted apps when they hope to make everyone undo all the changes later. If it sticks it is hard not to imagine it becoming global, since the app store tax issue has become a topic of concern in like a dozen countries now.
  - fundatus 1y ago
    Yeah, I was hoping Apple would read the room and simply change the rules globally, but I guess they will be trying to squeeze us customers for as long as they can.
    - ocdtrekkie 1y ago
      The entire thing they got contempt of court for was trying to find a way to continue to squeeze customers as long as they can. This is the Big Tech playbook. Apple and Google know what they're doing isn't legal. But they make so much doing it, that it's worth the lawyer fees to delay and delay and appeal and appeal as long as possible to keep the money train flowing. Historically the fine has never been as big as the profit, so even if they eventually get in trouble for it, it makes sense for them to profit in the short term.
  - stingraycharles 1y ago
    This is exactly it. They’re acting as if it’s something that’s going to be reversed, and are going to appeal. If they also apply the same rules to other countries, it would hurt their case that this court order is unjust.
    - AtlasBarfed 1y ago
      They can just get a presidential pardon for now and all future acts. Companies are people. Unkillable people. Unjailable people. They don't sleep. They have a thousand arms, a thousand eyes, a thousand legs, thousand brains. They get better financing, they can walk away from their financing. I can send unlimited money to politicians. They can exist in a thousand places, countries, legal systems at once.
fmbb 1y ago
Are the requirements still there for e.g. the EU storefront?
- maxehmookau 1y ago
  I'm pretty sure EU apps can link elsewhere for payment, but they have to show a warning message first saying that the payment is outside of Apple's jurisdiction and you can't get a refund from apple, etc.
  - nozzlegear 1y ago
    Am I crazy or was this not already possible in the US? When I tried to sign up for Disney Plus to watch the new season of Andor, Disney told me I had to complete the signup outside of the app. Then I got a big warning from Apple saying I was no longer transacting with Apple and wouldn't be able to cancel the subscription or get refunds via the App Store if I continued. Am I misunderstanding what this trial was about? https://imgur.com/a/zmDEx7v https://imgur.com/a/zmDEx7v
    - troupo 1y ago
      1. Yes it's already a thing 2. The US court found that Apple's implementation/requirement is bullshit and ordered it to stop. Apple complied, in the US only
    - maxehmookau 1y ago
      Oh, worst of all, the app owners still have to pay apple's cut!
  - mvac 1y ago
    This exemption is only there for "reader apps" " 3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video). ... Reader app developers may apply for the External Link Account Entitlement to provide an informational link in their app to a web site ...
dartharva 1y ago
In the same article: 3.1.1 In-App Purchase: If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, cryptocurrencies and cryptocurrency wallets, etc. Oof, I don't envy app developers who have to tolerate this bullshit
- JustExAWS 1y ago
  You’ll have to excuse me for not mourning for game developers having to pay 30% for purchases of loot boxes and other pay to win mechanics. It came out in the original Epic trial that this is where 90% of in app revenue comes from.
  - dartharva 1y ago
    What about the freemium model that is standard in the industry? Not everything is games.
    - swiftcoder 1y ago
      You mean the model that has shifted to where apps that used to be a single $10 unlock, now have a recurring subscription of $24.99/month? Personally unclear how much less predatory the shift to subscriptions for trivial feature unlocks is than loot boxes...
      - maccard 1y ago
        What app used to be $10 and is now a $300/year subscription?
        mschuster91 1y ago
        Try to keep Tetris ad free. 6.99 a month, and they label that as a "special deal".
revskill 1y ago
Apple store needs to die. We have the web.
- hnlmorg 1y ago
  Ironically the App Store only exists because of the ridicule Apple received when they announced their new smartphone which then only supported 3rd party applications as web apps. Back then, native apps were considered a “must have” feature for smartphones. How times have changed.
  - owebmaster 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - revskill 1y ago
      What does grown up mean ?
      - alt227 1y ago
        [flagged]
    - hnlmorg 1y ago
      Youre making reductive assertions on my comment. I’m neither defending nor explaining Apples actions. Just adding commentary on why the App Store exists. Also you’re getting cause and effect the wrong way around. Plenty of businesses have made 10s of billions based on happy accidents. Just because Apple now makes a mint from the App Store, it doesn’t mean it was part of their original vision for the iPhone.
  - alt227 1y ago
    The App store and native apps are not one and the same. OP didnt say that native apps need to die, only the app store. Android ecosystem deals just fine with native apps being distributed in .apk format which can just easily be installed by the user clicking on the file. Why cant this happen on Apple devices too?
JanSt 1y ago
Only in the US feels like shooting themselves in the foot again. The EU is already cracking down on them for their malicious compliance with the DMA, and it’s only a matter of time before similar pressure builds
- arghwhat 1y ago
  The problem is that "shooting themselves in the foot" also translates to "earning more money for a longer time".
  - nicce 1y ago
    We need some courage to give larger fines. It is too common to calculate fines just as financial risk rather than something which you should not do because it is not a good thing. It is obvious that they are making more money than the possible fines are when they still continue doing this. Or just put persons responsible for company's ill decisions and suddenly all problems disappear.
    - repeekad 1y ago
      Also don’t forget, only very large companies can make this kind of calculated risk; when the parking ticket isn’t calculated based on your income, the parking ticket for some is just a fee to park while to others it means not making rent that month, the fines stifle competition while the big players can take advantage
  - JanSt 1y ago
    Probably true. The EU needs to enact daily fines for non-compliance, going back to the day the legislation came into power.
netdevphoenix 1y ago
I don't get it. Why is Apple changing this in the US now? Is it because the allegation of them lying under oath and being subjected to a criminal review? If so, how does this change absolves them or minimises their fate during the upcoming criminal trial against them?
- ocdtrekkie 1y ago
  The injunction prohibits them from restricting outside purchases in any way.
- stetrain 1y ago
  This is related to the previous Apple v Epic civil case. The judge recently determined that Apple had not complied with the previous ruling. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-judge-rules-apple-violated-order-reform-app-store-2025-04-30/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
- foolswisdom 1y ago
  You're confusing two different things. 1 the court determined that apple subverted the original injunction, and ordered that it comply immediately (specifically calling out all the ways apple was getting around the injunction previously). 2 the court said that to issue a fine so that apple loses whatever money it gained by non-compliance would be considered a criminal matter (unless it becomes clear that there's no other way to force apple to comply with 1 above) even though it may be appropriate, and as such it is beyond the scope of what the court could order in its own, and the court refers the matter for criminal prosecution. So this change is just apple complying with 1.
- pc86 1y ago
  "Upcoming criminal trial" implies that there is an upcoming criminal trial, which at this point there is not. The judge referred a criminal complaint for contempt against that witness. The office that received it (presumably some sort of investigative division of the court or law enforcement entity) has to investigate, decide if they want to refer it to a prosecutor, and the prosecutor then has to decide if they want to actually file charges. Then there's a probable cause hearing where a judge determines if there is enough evidence for a trial. Then they set a trial date. Until a trial date is set there is no upcoming criminal trial.
Larrikin 1y ago
Hopefully the criminal charge referrals don't disappear.
- kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
  Tim Apple just needs to make a bigger bribe. Jeff Bozo scooped the documentaries so now he's gotta find something bigger to launder the payoff with.
nextworddev 1y ago
[flagged]
- owebmaster 1y ago
  just like the internet. We don't need Apple to make tens of billions of dollars out of pretending to filter it.
  - daveidol 1y ago
    Seriously. Do people not use Safari on their phones to browse the web? iPhone users are still exposed to the same risks via that method and we are doing just fine. This is going to save us all money. It’s a good thing for everyone but Apple.
    - nozzlegear 1y ago
      > This is going to save us all money. It’s a good thing for everyone but Apple. Is it? I was forced to sign up for Disney Plus using their website last week instead of subscribing through the App Store. Now I have to use their website to cancel my subscription when I finish Andor. Maybe Disney's subscription cancelation process is easy, but how many of my subscriptions are going to dark pattern and gaslight me into thinking I don't want to cancel now? If Apple had some kind of integration for third party devs to add subscriptions/payments into the App Store so users can cancel them or ask for refunds, and then required devs to use it without regulators getting in the way, I'd be less annoyed.
    - insane_dreamer 1y ago
      It’s good for devs. It’s worse for consumers.
  - nextworddev 1y ago
    And Apple doesn’t need to give you access to its users
    - 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
deeThrow94 1y ago
A win is a win
aligundogdu 1y ago
Do these rules only apply to the United States?
- andiareso 1y ago
  Yes
coldcode 1y ago
At the risk of not piling on to the Apple dislike here, if you use a non-Apple payment system, and you have an issue, you now need to go to the specific company and payment system, you can no longer demand your money back by dealing with a single company. I presume even more scam apps will take your money and ignore your complaints; imagine trying to sue a company in some foreign country to try to get your money back if they stole it. When Apple controlled the payment system, Apple could be sued in your home country. Of course this happens on the web too, but apps on your phone very different from web apps.
- UncleMeat 1y ago
  You are free to only use apps that use apple payments if you are concerned about this.
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    But then there are apps you were able to use previously that you will no longer be able to trust. That's the problem -- it's taking away trust. You're not free to continue using Apple's payment system as a consumer.
    - caseyy 1y ago
      What do you mean? The app can use Apple's system and its own. If the developers don't want your money on terms fair to you, you don't buy. Some things are relatively easy to refund via Apple, but not all of them. It's nearly impossible to get a refund for in-app purchases, gift cards, balance top-ups, auto-renewing subscriptions, redeemed digital goods, and so on. Coming from the EU, if I paid for these things directly with a credit card, I'd be able to get a refund in line with our consumer protection laws (if the item was sold deceptively, if it has a fault, if I am not satisfied for any reason within 14 days) that cover more or less all digital purchases - no problem. To borrow your words, Apple's system is taking away trust. I like the refunds my European bank offers me because it operates under consumer-friendly laws. I don't trust Apple's refunds. Anyway, opening any system to more choices for the consumer cannot decrease trust. If the consumer trusts the original payment option, they can use that. If that is not provided, but the customers don't trust other payment methods, the app won't make money. The market will soon negotiate so that the payment methods that customers and sellers find acceptable prevail. Apple fears it won't be their extortion (I mean payment system), and rightfully so. Aside from the Stockholm syndrome, there's very little reason to use it.
zackify 1y ago
Crazy. I thought hackernews didn’t care because this happened yesterday and I never saw anything! We’re updating our app in a couple days this will save a LOT of money. We will kick users out to web and pass a JWT in the url with a short lifespan to log the user in on web and then prompt for Apple Pay or credit card. Then a link back to our app’s deep link
- candiddevmike 1y ago
  So many questions: - Why not just handle all of this in the app? Do you think Apple won't allow it? - Are you geofencing this functionality? It seems like per other comments this is US only. - How are you handling existing subscribers (not sure if applicable)? Will you "encourage" them to migrate?
  - politician 1y ago
    It'll be a nightmare to get an in-app change like this through their approval process. OP's solution to offload the entire thing to the web is a great stop-gap measure since when it is definitely rejected they can appeal through their App Store rep pointing to this external payment URL decision and have some small chance of getting it approved in the nearest term.
  - junto 1y ago
    Because customers can’t trust payments in the app. Unless I’m being bounced out to somewhere I can see the URL and an SSL certificate I’m not paying. What you’re suggesting is a dangerous anti-pattern.
    - HighGoldstein 1y ago
      I don't know about iOS, but on Android you can just pay through a Google Pay pop-up, you don't need to input any kind of payment information to the app itself. Does iOS not have such a mechanism?
      - leakycap 1y ago
buyucu 1y ago
Apple wrote the textbook on malicious compliance.
perihelions 1y ago
Related threads, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43852145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43852145 ("Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds (wsj.com)" — 585 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43856795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43856795 ("Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral (thebignewsletter.com)" — 340 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43859814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43859814 ("A senior Apple exec could be jailed in Epic case (9to5mac.com)" — 94 comments)
dereg 1y ago
My main takeaway from this is that Luca Maestri was a blight on Apple. He steered this company into the most malicious of compliance schemes that only has increased their regulatory attack surface. On top of that, he's the one who discouraged apple from making huge investments in compute for LLMs that threatens to derail Apple and the iPhone's primacy as the gateway to information.
- intothemild 1y ago
  Yes, don't forget Tim Cook, who from what I've seen, is the biggest proponent of milking every dollar out of absolutely everything, regardless of if it's good for the consumer or not*. So Maestri and Cook were a perfect combination, Maestri got to be tough, and Cook got someone to blame. *Take USB-C, Apple made tonnes of money from MFA, which was the main reason they didn't ever want to pivot to a different connector. Even if it was the better choice.
post_break 1y ago
This is what bad management at Apple looks like. They were now forced to cut off the spice flow that is millions of dollars of IAPs from games in their coveted services pie chart because they got cocky. Roblox alone is going to show up on their balance chart. Epic throwing water on an oil fire with their comments make me grin, they are the reason Apple lowered AppStore pricing, and now they are the reason Apple can no longer collect rent from Patreon (which collects rent themselves). Epic won due to Apple's on hubris.
- InTheArena 1y ago
  Congrats. Two of the most user-hostile companies, one of which profits by exploiting children, are going to be better off. And let's also be clear, neither of these companies wants this revenue stream to go away; they just want a judge to give that revenue stream to them. Get rid of Roblox's and Epic's anti-consumer behavior, and then I will "grin" at this.
  - post_break 1y ago
    You should grin any time you see someone make a "god" bleed.
  - redserk 1y ago
    It's still a step forward at least for everyone who doesn't use a product from Epic or Roblox. There is simply no 100.00% perfect solution here that'll make 100.00% people happy.
  - ocdtrekkie 1y ago
    It's really important to realize Epic could've gotten off with special treatment years ago. Fortnite is large enough to dictate terms, and both Apple and Google have made offers before. Tim Sweeney may someday become the villain, but anyone who doesn't realize he gambled a huge amount of his company's future on demanding change for everyone. Every single individual app developer should be singing his praises today, because he could've just gotten the deal for his company, and many other companies have gone that route. Epic decided to demand better.
  - 1y ago
999900000999 1y ago
Most customers are probably going to assume your a con artist if you don't use the official IAP. When I use mobile apps I like being able to do all my spending in one place. I want to be able to go to subscriptions and cancel everything I don't need at once. Just yesterday I had to manually stop a PayPal payment renewal since the merchants cancellation process doesn't work ( 2 emails to customer service and I get the vibe this is intentional). That's not something I want to have to keep doing. I can imagine Epic being able to convince people to use a 3rd party payment provider, but that won't happen for smaller studios.
- m-s-y 1y ago
  > Most customers are probably going to assume your a con artist if you don't use the official IAP. and this is apple’s reasoning for why their strict control over the app store is warranted. they want it to be seen as trusted and infallible and that can’t happen if 3rd parties have free reign. for me, the correct way forward isn’t external referrals. it’s allowing multiple app stores on devices. if you don't want the “untrusted” 3rd party store with more lax dev rules than Apple’s, just don’t use them.
  - 999900000999 1y ago
    >for me, the correct way forward isn’t external referrals. it’s allowing multiple app stores on devices. if you don't want the “untrusted” 3rd party store with more lax dev rules than Apple’s, just don’t use them. Exactly. Or better yet just let me install whatever binaries I want. Make it clear I'm responsible for what I install though. From the perspective of the average consumer, it's much easier for Apple to handle the whole flow. If I want to cancel my subscription via the app store it take 30 seconds, not a bunch of unanswered emails to customer support.
EcommerceFlow 1y ago
If you haven't watched Tim Sweeney's appearance on Lex Fridman (which went live two days ago ironically), he discusses this battle against Apple, which he's maintained at a furious pace for years. He goes into detail on how the previous guidelines stifle innovation, how app developers are basically forced to implement anti-consumer practices to maintain the ridiculous costs of achieving success on the app store, etc. His Crusade for open platforms/services in general is very very respectable. Fortnite, in my opinion, has been a gold standard for F2P monetization. No gambling, no randomized loot boxes, etc. Compare that with Counter Strike 2, and I can't imagine how much money Epic has left on the table by choosing this path. So I give Tim a lot of credit for maintaining such a principled stance.
- pjmlp 1y ago
  I haven't seen any crusade of him against console vendors though.
  - stavros 1y ago
    Don't let "better" be the enemy of "good".
    - taylorbuley 1y ago
      The way my favorite boss told me, it was "don't let `great` be the enemy of `good enough.`"
      - brutal_chaos_ 1y ago
        Good enough is how everything went to shit (enshitification). "It's an MVP? Good enough, ship it and bolt on features no one wants." Personally, I am very tired of "good enough." I wish we built great things.
        gjsman-1000 1y ago
        "Enshitification" is probably the most self-sabotaging term we could think of; in terms of how it makes us look like whining teenagers. I will never use it in polite conversation; which would ironically be a tech company's greatest goal for if we had a word. But optics aside, this also ignores the problem that many of these businesses were not sustainable and were never sustainable. They are heading downhill, partially because they never had any ground to stand on. If we want to see less of this behavior, we should stop allowing the blitzscale strategy of running a loss to gain marketshare. This is also why the claim of "greed" or "enshitification" falls on deaf ears for them. They could easily say: "No, we lit billions on fire as an investment to keep it free and grow market share; we're now asking for some returns on that investment. We're not adding a Pro plan, we were paying for the Pro plan previously. Be thankful for how long it lasted, and how much money you saved."
pirsquare 1y ago
Because all other aspects of their businesses except services beat expectations. So we can't really say if this change will be permanent indefinitely.
nashashmi 1y ago
> … except for apps on the United States storefront, the apps may not… US based app developers hosting apps on app stores in other countries should also be covered by the injunction. What am I missing? Is the injunction only covering US based app market? And does not cover app developers? Tim, come back. The deed is yet to be completed.
- CrimsonRain 1y ago
  My question also.
- layer8 1y ago
  Apple’s wording is “apps on the United States storefront” [0], so apps on the US app store only. [0] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#payments https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#pay...
  - saurik 1y ago
    Right. We get that's what's Apple is doing, but the question is whether it satisfies the injunction. FWIW, I will claim it does not: it should cover--at least for any developer in the United States--any app published by any Apple-affiliated entity, anywhere, and certainly covers Apple's centrally managed global store.
    - layer8 1y ago
      I’m no expert, but it may be the case that if you place an app on, say, the EU app store, you’re technically doing business in the EU, not the US, and are therefore subject to EU law, not US law. Wasn’t that the case with the DSA requirements? https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/18/apple-purges-apps-without-contact-info-from-eu-app-store-as-dsa-deadline-hits/ https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/18/apple-purges-apps-without-...
      - saurik 1y ago
        Even if I accept Apple's definition that such a developer is directly doing business in the EU, the injunction applies to "Apple, Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any person in active concert or participation with them", which certainly includes the direction they provide to the people they hire to operate their storefronts in other countries (particularly so as this is, as I stated, a centrally-managed system run out of the United States).
redbell 1y ago
> In the European Union, developers can also distribute notarized iOS and iPadOS apps from alternative app marketplaces and directly from their website. Well, this was only possible because the EU had pushed hard toward this openness otherwise, we wouldn't expect Apple to do this. > For everything else there is always the open Internet. If the App Store model and guidelines or alternative app marketplaces and Notarization for iOS and iPadOS apps are not best for your app or business idea that’s okay, we provide Safari for a great web experience too. IMO, Safari on iOS do not have a great experience for web devs who are willing to distribute their apps as PWAs, especially when there is no alternative browser that provides additional capabilities, they are all skinned Safaris. Take for instance the Vibration API [1], it has been supported since a long time in Chrome mobile but not in Safari. I believe it does an excellent job in giving a PWA some native-feeling when being used. Still though, I still miss that haptic feedback is not yet supported by Chrome. Bluetooth [2] is yet another missing API in Safari. Of course, for these (and other) web APIs to be abused by developers, I encourage browser vendors to disable them by default when requested from a website and enable them ONLY on user consent. On the other hand, when a user installs the PWA, these privileges should be granted automatically with the ability to disable them by the user. To finalize, another excellent API that facilitate the installation of PWAs by triggering an install prompt [3] is not supported in iOS Safari, which does really makes me wonder: "How Safari provides a great web experience?" ___________________ 1. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Vibration_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Vibration_A... 2. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Bluetooth_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Bluetoo... 3. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Progressive_web_apps/How_to/Trigger_install_prompt https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Progressive_web...
crowcroft 1y ago
Apple constantly says paying through the app store is better for consumers, so why are they so hesitant to simply compete? Unless...
perdomon 1y ago
The difference between the quality of software in the Apple App Store versus the Google Play Store is dramatic, in my opinion. Apple has succeeded in increasing the bar to entry and standards to the point where a lot of the blatant trash/advertising malware present in the Google Play Store is caught by the net of the App Store submission process (and the $99 developer fee). I do believe the court when they say that Apple has engaged in seriously anticompetitive behavior, and I don't look to Apple as some sort of altruistic honest company, but I also am curious to see if this reduces the average 'value' of a given app in the App Store. On the other hand, it could encourage the development of high-quality software since devs aren't paying the 30%+ tax on App Store sales.
- stetrain 1y ago
  They could absolutely maintain that quality of software in the App Store while also allowing people to install software from other sources. By fighting so hard to keep the App Store as the sole distribution mechanism for iPhone software Apple has invited these compromises on themselves.
reylas 1y ago
So, what keeps all app developers from charging 0 to "buy" the app from the store, then nickel and dime the user inside the app? This really feels like the beginning of things way worse.
- nielsbot 1y ago
  they already do that. (free to download, in app purchases after)
  - reylas 1y ago
    But apple was getting a cut of the in-app. Now they can't.
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      Now Apple has less incentive to allow exploitative IAPs and lootboxes on their store. Problem solved.
- McGlockenshire 1y ago
  If Apple was worried about this, they shouldn't have flaunted the court order in a way that made the judge say in the subsequent order that "this is an injunction, not a negotiation."
  - reylas 1y ago
    I understand what you are saying, but not what I am getting at. If you were a developer and had a choice between a "one-time fee" with Apple taking 30% vs "free to download" but redirect to an outside payment system, which one would you chose? I am worried that now game companies are incentivized to abandon "initial purchase" games/apps and go the "loot-box, subscription" route. Is this the final nail in the pay one time for games coffin?
    - SSLy 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

pk97 1y ago

This should be applicable across the world, not just US.

MiddleEndian 1y ago

They should work with Google and implement a ban on apps that constantly forget your login information.

macguillicuddy 1y ago

>The App Review Guidelines have been updated for compliance with a United States court decision regarding buttons, external links, and other calls to action in apps. These changes affect apps distributed on the United States storefront of the App Store, and are as follows: ... > 3.1.3: The prohibition on encouraging users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase does not apply on the United States storefront. > 3.1.3(a): The External Link Account entitlement is not required for apps on the United States storefront to include buttons, external links, or other calls to action.

nailer 1y ago

Why does it have to be a link to a website? Why can’t the app just let me pay, potentially not using Apple Pay?

HDThoreaun 1y ago
because thats what the judge said. She ruled that rules banning in app purchases that dont use apple pay is allowed but the anti steering stuff is not.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

fundatus 1y ago

Sigh, not that I expected anything else from Apple at this point but of course they only change the rules for the US.

ocdtrekkie 1y ago
Presumably they are planning to appeal so want to minimize impacted apps when they hope to make everyone undo all the changes later. If it sticks it is hard not to imagine it becoming global, since the app store tax issue has become a topic of concern in like a dozen countries now.
- fundatus 1y ago
  Yeah, I was hoping Apple would read the room and simply change the rules globally, but I guess they will be trying to squeeze us customers for as long as they can.
  - ocdtrekkie 1y ago
    The entire thing they got contempt of court for was trying to find a way to continue to squeeze customers as long as they can. This is the Big Tech playbook. Apple and Google know what they're doing isn't legal. But they make so much doing it, that it's worth the lawyer fees to delay and delay and appeal and appeal as long as possible to keep the money train flowing. Historically the fine has never been as big as the profit, so even if they eventually get in trouble for it, it makes sense for them to profit in the short term.
- stingraycharles 1y ago
  This is exactly it. They’re acting as if it’s something that’s going to be reversed, and are going to appeal. If they also apply the same rules to other countries, it would hurt their case that this court order is unjust.
  - AtlasBarfed 1y ago
    They can just get a presidential pardon for now and all future acts. Companies are people. Unkillable people. Unjailable people. They don't sleep. They have a thousand arms, a thousand eyes, a thousand legs, thousand brains. They get better financing, they can walk away from their financing. I can send unlimited money to politicians. They can exist in a thousand places, countries, legal systems at once.

fmbb 1y ago

Are the requirements still there for e.g. the EU storefront?

maxehmookau 1y ago
I'm pretty sure EU apps can link elsewhere for payment, but they have to show a warning message first saying that the payment is outside of Apple's jurisdiction and you can't get a refund from apple, etc.
- nozzlegear 1y ago
  Am I crazy or was this not already possible in the US? When I tried to sign up for Disney Plus to watch the new season of Andor, Disney told me I had to complete the signup outside of the app. Then I got a big warning from Apple saying I was no longer transacting with Apple and wouldn't be able to cancel the subscription or get refunds via the App Store if I continued. Am I misunderstanding what this trial was about? https://imgur.com/a/zmDEx7v https://imgur.com/a/zmDEx7v
  - troupo 1y ago
    1. Yes it's already a thing 2. The US court found that Apple's implementation/requirement is bullshit and ordered it to stop. Apple complied, in the US only
  - maxehmookau 1y ago
    Oh, worst of all, the app owners still have to pay apple's cut!
- mvac 1y ago
  This exemption is only there for "reader apps" " 3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video). ... Reader app developers may apply for the External Link Account Entitlement to provide an informational link in their app to a web site ...

dartharva 1y ago

In the same article: 3.1.1 In-App Purchase: If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, cryptocurrencies and cryptocurrency wallets, etc. Oof, I don't envy app developers who have to tolerate this bullshit

JustExAWS 1y ago
You’ll have to excuse me for not mourning for game developers having to pay 30% for purchases of loot boxes and other pay to win mechanics. It came out in the original Epic trial that this is where 90% of in app revenue comes from.
- dartharva 1y ago
  What about the freemium model that is standard in the industry? Not everything is games.
  - swiftcoder 1y ago
    You mean the model that has shifted to where apps that used to be a single $10 unlock, now have a recurring subscription of $24.99/month? Personally unclear how much less predatory the shift to subscriptions for trivial feature unlocks is than loot boxes...
    - maccard 1y ago
      What app used to be $10 and is now a $300/year subscription?
      - mschuster91 1y ago
        Try to keep Tetris ad free. 6.99 a month, and they label that as a "special deal".

revskill 1y ago

Apple store needs to die. We have the web.

hnlmorg 1y ago
Ironically the App Store only exists because of the ridicule Apple received when they announced their new smartphone which then only supported 3rd party applications as web apps. Back then, native apps were considered a “must have” feature for smartphones. How times have changed.
- owebmaster 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - revskill 1y ago
    What does grown up mean ?
    - alt227 1y ago
      [flagged]
  - hnlmorg 1y ago
    Youre making reductive assertions on my comment. I’m neither defending nor explaining Apples actions. Just adding commentary on why the App Store exists. Also you’re getting cause and effect the wrong way around. Plenty of businesses have made 10s of billions based on happy accidents. Just because Apple now makes a mint from the App Store, it doesn’t mean it was part of their original vision for the iPhone.
- alt227 1y ago
  The App store and native apps are not one and the same. OP didnt say that native apps need to die, only the app store. Android ecosystem deals just fine with native apps being distributed in .apk format which can just easily be installed by the user clicking on the file. Why cant this happen on Apple devices too?

JanSt 1y ago

Only in the US feels like shooting themselves in the foot again. The EU is already cracking down on them for their malicious compliance with the DMA, and it’s only a matter of time before similar pressure builds

arghwhat 1y ago
The problem is that "shooting themselves in the foot" also translates to "earning more money for a longer time".
- nicce 1y ago
  We need some courage to give larger fines. It is too common to calculate fines just as financial risk rather than something which you should not do because it is not a good thing. It is obvious that they are making more money than the possible fines are when they still continue doing this. Or just put persons responsible for company's ill decisions and suddenly all problems disappear.
  - repeekad 1y ago
    Also don’t forget, only very large companies can make this kind of calculated risk; when the parking ticket isn’t calculated based on your income, the parking ticket for some is just a fee to park while to others it means not making rent that month, the fines stifle competition while the big players can take advantage
- JanSt 1y ago
  Probably true. The EU needs to enact daily fines for non-compliance, going back to the day the legislation came into power.

netdevphoenix 1y ago

I don't get it. Why is Apple changing this in the US now? Is it because the allegation of them lying under oath and being subjected to a criminal review? If so, how does this change absolves them or minimises their fate during the upcoming criminal trial against them?

ocdtrekkie 1y ago
The injunction prohibits them from restricting outside purchases in any way.
stetrain 1y ago
This is related to the previous Apple v Epic civil case. The judge recently determined that Apple had not complied with the previous ruling. https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-judge-rules-apple-violated-order-reform-app-store-2025-04-30/ https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...
foolswisdom 1y ago
You're confusing two different things. 1 the court determined that apple subverted the original injunction, and ordered that it comply immediately (specifically calling out all the ways apple was getting around the injunction previously). 2 the court said that to issue a fine so that apple loses whatever money it gained by non-compliance would be considered a criminal matter (unless it becomes clear that there's no other way to force apple to comply with 1 above) even though it may be appropriate, and as such it is beyond the scope of what the court could order in its own, and the court refers the matter for criminal prosecution. So this change is just apple complying with 1.
pc86 1y ago
"Upcoming criminal trial" implies that there is an upcoming criminal trial, which at this point there is not. The judge referred a criminal complaint for contempt against that witness. The office that received it (presumably some sort of investigative division of the court or law enforcement entity) has to investigate, decide if they want to refer it to a prosecutor, and the prosecutor then has to decide if they want to actually file charges. Then there's a probable cause hearing where a judge determines if there is enough evidence for a trial. Then they set a trial date. Until a trial date is set there is no upcoming criminal trial.

Larrikin 1y ago

Hopefully the criminal charge referrals don't disappear.

kevin_thibedeau 1y ago
Tim Apple just needs to make a bigger bribe. Jeff Bozo scooped the documentaries so now he's gotta find something bigger to launder the payoff with.

nextworddev 1y ago

[flagged]

owebmaster 1y ago
just like the internet. We don't need Apple to make tens of billions of dollars out of pretending to filter it.
- daveidol 1y ago
  Seriously. Do people not use Safari on their phones to browse the web? iPhone users are still exposed to the same risks via that method and we are doing just fine. This is going to save us all money. It’s a good thing for everyone but Apple.
  - nozzlegear 1y ago
    > This is going to save us all money. It’s a good thing for everyone but Apple. Is it? I was forced to sign up for Disney Plus using their website last week instead of subscribing through the App Store. Now I have to use their website to cancel my subscription when I finish Andor. Maybe Disney's subscription cancelation process is easy, but how many of my subscriptions are going to dark pattern and gaslight me into thinking I don't want to cancel now? If Apple had some kind of integration for third party devs to add subscriptions/payments into the App Store so users can cancel them or ask for refunds, and then required devs to use it without regulators getting in the way, I'd be less annoyed.
  - insane_dreamer 1y ago
    It’s good for devs. It’s worse for consumers.
- nextworddev 1y ago
  And Apple doesn’t need to give you access to its users
  - 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

deeThrow94 1y ago

A win is a win

aligundogdu 1y ago

Do these rules only apply to the United States?

andiareso 1y ago
Yes

coldcode 1y ago

At the risk of not piling on to the Apple dislike here, if you use a non-Apple payment system, and you have an issue, you now need to go to the specific company and payment system, you can no longer demand your money back by dealing with a single company. I presume even more scam apps will take your money and ignore your complaints; imagine trying to sue a company in some foreign country to try to get your money back if they stole it. When Apple controlled the payment system, Apple could be sued in your home country. Of course this happens on the web too, but apps on your phone very different from web apps.

UncleMeat 1y ago
You are free to only use apps that use apple payments if you are concerned about this.
- crazygringo 1y ago
  But then there are apps you were able to use previously that you will no longer be able to trust. That's the problem -- it's taking away trust. You're not free to continue using Apple's payment system as a consumer.
  - caseyy 1y ago
    What do you mean? The app can use Apple's system and its own. If the developers don't want your money on terms fair to you, you don't buy. Some things are relatively easy to refund via Apple, but not all of them. It's nearly impossible to get a refund for in-app purchases, gift cards, balance top-ups, auto-renewing subscriptions, redeemed digital goods, and so on. Coming from the EU, if I paid for these things directly with a credit card, I'd be able to get a refund in line with our consumer protection laws (if the item was sold deceptively, if it has a fault, if I am not satisfied for any reason within 14 days) that cover more or less all digital purchases - no problem. To borrow your words, Apple's system is taking away trust. I like the refunds my European bank offers me because it operates under consumer-friendly laws. I don't trust Apple's refunds. Anyway, opening any system to more choices for the consumer cannot decrease trust. If the consumer trusts the original payment option, they can use that. If that is not provided, but the customers don't trust other payment methods, the app won't make money. The market will soon negotiate so that the payment methods that customers and sellers find acceptable prevail. Apple fears it won't be their extortion (I mean payment system), and rightfully so. Aside from the Stockholm syndrome, there's very little reason to use it.

zackify 1y ago

Crazy. I thought hackernews didn’t care because this happened yesterday and I never saw anything! We’re updating our app in a couple days this will save a LOT of money. We will kick users out to web and pass a JWT in the url with a short lifespan to log the user in on web and then prompt for Apple Pay or credit card. Then a link back to our app’s deep link

candiddevmike 1y ago
So many questions: - Why not just handle all of this in the app? Do you think Apple won't allow it? - Are you geofencing this functionality? It seems like per other comments this is US only. - How are you handling existing subscribers (not sure if applicable)? Will you "encourage" them to migrate?
- politician 1y ago
  It'll be a nightmare to get an in-app change like this through their approval process. OP's solution to offload the entire thing to the web is a great stop-gap measure since when it is definitely rejected they can appeal through their App Store rep pointing to this external payment URL decision and have some small chance of getting it approved in the nearest term.
- junto 1y ago
  Because customers can’t trust payments in the app. Unless I’m being bounced out to somewhere I can see the URL and an SSL certificate I’m not paying. What you’re suggesting is a dangerous anti-pattern.
  - HighGoldstein 1y ago
    I don't know about iOS, but on Android you can just pay through a Google Pay pop-up, you don't need to input any kind of payment information to the app itself. Does iOS not have such a mechanism?
    - leakycap 1y ago

buyucu 1y ago

Apple wrote the textbook on malicious compliance.

perihelions 1y ago

Related threads, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43852145 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43852145 ("Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds (wsj.com)" — 585 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43856795 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43856795 ("Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral (thebignewsletter.com)" — 340 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43859814 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43859814 ("A senior Apple exec could be jailed in Epic case (9to5mac.com)" — 94 comments)

dereg 1y ago

My main takeaway from this is that Luca Maestri was a blight on Apple. He steered this company into the most malicious of compliance schemes that only has increased their regulatory attack surface. On top of that, he's the one who discouraged apple from making huge investments in compute for LLMs that threatens to derail Apple and the iPhone's primacy as the gateway to information.

intothemild 1y ago
Yes, don't forget Tim Cook, who from what I've seen, is the biggest proponent of milking every dollar out of absolutely everything, regardless of if it's good for the consumer or not*. So Maestri and Cook were a perfect combination, Maestri got to be tough, and Cook got someone to blame. *Take USB-C, Apple made tonnes of money from MFA, which was the main reason they didn't ever want to pivot to a different connector. Even if it was the better choice.

post_break 1y ago

This is what bad management at Apple looks like. They were now forced to cut off the spice flow that is millions of dollars of IAPs from games in their coveted services pie chart because they got cocky. Roblox alone is going to show up on their balance chart. Epic throwing water on an oil fire with their comments make me grin, they are the reason Apple lowered AppStore pricing, and now they are the reason Apple can no longer collect rent from Patreon (which collects rent themselves). Epic won due to Apple's on hubris.

InTheArena 1y ago
Congrats. Two of the most user-hostile companies, one of which profits by exploiting children, are going to be better off. And let's also be clear, neither of these companies wants this revenue stream to go away; they just want a judge to give that revenue stream to them. Get rid of Roblox's and Epic's anti-consumer behavior, and then I will "grin" at this.
- post_break 1y ago
  You should grin any time you see someone make a "god" bleed.
- redserk 1y ago
  It's still a step forward at least for everyone who doesn't use a product from Epic or Roblox. There is simply no 100.00% perfect solution here that'll make 100.00% people happy.
- ocdtrekkie 1y ago
  It's really important to realize Epic could've gotten off with special treatment years ago. Fortnite is large enough to dictate terms, and both Apple and Google have made offers before. Tim Sweeney may someday become the villain, but anyone who doesn't realize he gambled a huge amount of his company's future on demanding change for everyone. Every single individual app developer should be singing his praises today, because he could've just gotten the deal for his company, and many other companies have gone that route. Epic decided to demand better.
- 1y ago

999900000999 1y ago

Most customers are probably going to assume your a con artist if you don't use the official IAP. When I use mobile apps I like being able to do all my spending in one place. I want to be able to go to subscriptions and cancel everything I don't need at once. Just yesterday I had to manually stop a PayPal payment renewal since the merchants cancellation process doesn't work ( 2 emails to customer service and I get the vibe this is intentional). That's not something I want to have to keep doing. I can imagine Epic being able to convince people to use a 3rd party payment provider, but that won't happen for smaller studios.

m-s-y 1y ago
> Most customers are probably going to assume your a con artist if you don't use the official IAP. and this is apple’s reasoning for why their strict control over the app store is warranted. they want it to be seen as trusted and infallible and that can’t happen if 3rd parties have free reign. for me, the correct way forward isn’t external referrals. it’s allowing multiple app stores on devices. if you don't want the “untrusted” 3rd party store with more lax dev rules than Apple’s, just don’t use them.
- 999900000999 1y ago
  >for me, the correct way forward isn’t external referrals. it’s allowing multiple app stores on devices. if you don't want the “untrusted” 3rd party store with more lax dev rules than Apple’s, just don’t use them. Exactly. Or better yet just let me install whatever binaries I want. Make it clear I'm responsible for what I install though. From the perspective of the average consumer, it's much easier for Apple to handle the whole flow. If I want to cancel my subscription via the app store it take 30 seconds, not a bunch of unanswered emails to customer support.

EcommerceFlow 1y ago

If you haven't watched Tim Sweeney's appearance on Lex Fridman (which went live two days ago ironically), he discusses this battle against Apple, which he's maintained at a furious pace for years. He goes into detail on how the previous guidelines stifle innovation, how app developers are basically forced to implement anti-consumer practices to maintain the ridiculous costs of achieving success on the app store, etc. His Crusade for open platforms/services in general is very very respectable. Fortnite, in my opinion, has been a gold standard for F2P monetization. No gambling, no randomized loot boxes, etc. Compare that with Counter Strike 2, and I can't imagine how much money Epic has left on the table by choosing this path. So I give Tim a lot of credit for maintaining such a principled stance.

pjmlp 1y ago
I haven't seen any crusade of him against console vendors though.
- stavros 1y ago
  Don't let "better" be the enemy of "good".
  - taylorbuley 1y ago
    The way my favorite boss told me, it was "don't let `great` be the enemy of `good enough.`"
    - brutal_chaos_ 1y ago
      Good enough is how everything went to shit (enshitification). "It's an MVP? Good enough, ship it and bolt on features no one wants." Personally, I am very tired of "good enough." I wish we built great things.
      - gjsman-1000 1y ago
        "Enshitification" is probably the most self-sabotaging term we could think of; in terms of how it makes us look like whining teenagers. I will never use it in polite conversation; which would ironically be a tech company's greatest goal for if we had a word. But optics aside, this also ignores the problem that many of these businesses were not sustainable and were never sustainable. They are heading downhill, partially because they never had any ground to stand on. If we want to see less of this behavior, we should stop allowing the blitzscale strategy of running a loss to gain marketshare. This is also why the claim of "greed" or "enshitification" falls on deaf ears for them. They could easily say: "No, we lit billions on fire as an investment to keep it free and grow market share; we're now asking for some returns on that investment. We're not adding a Pro plan, we were paying for the Pro plan previously. Be thankful for how long it lasted, and how much money you saved."

pirsquare 1y ago

Because all other aspects of their businesses except services beat expectations. So we can't really say if this change will be permanent indefinitely.

nashashmi 1y ago

> … except for apps on the United States storefront, the apps may not… US based app developers hosting apps on app stores in other countries should also be covered by the injunction. What am I missing? Is the injunction only covering US based app market? And does not cover app developers? Tim, come back. The deed is yet to be completed.

CrimsonRain 1y ago
My question also.
layer8 1y ago
Apple’s wording is “apps on the United States storefront” [0], so apps on the US app store only. [0] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#payments https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#pay...
- saurik 1y ago
  Right. We get that's what's Apple is doing, but the question is whether it satisfies the injunction. FWIW, I will claim it does not: it should cover--at least for any developer in the United States--any app published by any Apple-affiliated entity, anywhere, and certainly covers Apple's centrally managed global store.
  - layer8 1y ago
    I’m no expert, but it may be the case that if you place an app on, say, the EU app store, you’re technically doing business in the EU, not the US, and are therefore subject to EU law, not US law. Wasn’t that the case with the DSA requirements? https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/18/apple-purges-apps-without-contact-info-from-eu-app-store-as-dsa-deadline-hits/ https://techcrunch.com/2025/02/18/apple-purges-apps-without-...
    - saurik 1y ago
      Even if I accept Apple's definition that such a developer is directly doing business in the EU, the injunction applies to "Apple, Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any person in active concert or participation with them", which certainly includes the direction they provide to the people they hire to operate their storefronts in other countries (particularly so as this is, as I stated, a centrally-managed system run out of the United States).

redbell 1y ago

> In the European Union, developers can also distribute notarized iOS and iPadOS apps from alternative app marketplaces and directly from their website. Well, this was only possible because the EU had pushed hard toward this openness otherwise, we wouldn't expect Apple to do this. > For everything else there is always the open Internet. If the App Store model and guidelines or alternative app marketplaces and Notarization for iOS and iPadOS apps are not best for your app or business idea that’s okay, we provide Safari for a great web experience too. IMO, Safari on iOS do not have a great experience for web devs who are willing to distribute their apps as PWAs, especially when there is no alternative browser that provides additional capabilities, they are all skinned Safaris. Take for instance the Vibration API [1], it has been supported since a long time in Chrome mobile but not in Safari. I believe it does an excellent job in giving a PWA some native-feeling when being used. Still though, I still miss that haptic feedback is not yet supported by Chrome. Bluetooth [2] is yet another missing API in Safari. Of course, for these (and other) web APIs to be abused by developers, I encourage browser vendors to disable them by default when requested from a website and enable them ONLY on user consent. On the other hand, when a user installs the PWA, these privileges should be granted automatically with the ability to disable them by the user. To finalize, another excellent API that facilitate the installation of PWAs by triggering an install prompt [3] is not supported in iOS Safari, which does really makes me wonder: "How Safari provides a great web experience?" ___________________ 1. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Vibration_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Vibration_A... 2. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Bluetooth_API https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Bluetoo... 3. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Progressive_web_apps/How_to/Trigger_install_prompt https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Progressive_web...

crowcroft 1y ago

Apple constantly says paying through the app store is better for consumers, so why are they so hesitant to simply compete? Unless...

perdomon 1y ago

The difference between the quality of software in the Apple App Store versus the Google Play Store is dramatic, in my opinion. Apple has succeeded in increasing the bar to entry and standards to the point where a lot of the blatant trash/advertising malware present in the Google Play Store is caught by the net of the App Store submission process (and the $99 developer fee). I do believe the court when they say that Apple has engaged in seriously anticompetitive behavior, and I don't look to Apple as some sort of altruistic honest company, but I also am curious to see if this reduces the average 'value' of a given app in the App Store. On the other hand, it could encourage the development of high-quality software since devs aren't paying the 30%+ tax on App Store sales.

stetrain 1y ago
They could absolutely maintain that quality of software in the App Store while also allowing people to install software from other sources. By fighting so hard to keep the App Store as the sole distribution mechanism for iPhone software Apple has invited these compromises on themselves.

reylas 1y ago

So, what keeps all app developers from charging 0 to "buy" the app from the store, then nickel and dime the user inside the app? This really feels like the beginning of things way worse.

nielsbot 1y ago
they already do that. (free to download, in app purchases after)
- reylas 1y ago
  But apple was getting a cut of the in-app. Now they can't.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    Now Apple has less incentive to allow exploitative IAPs and lootboxes on their store. Problem solved.
McGlockenshire 1y ago
If Apple was worried about this, they shouldn't have flaunted the court order in a way that made the judge say in the subsequent order that "this is an injunction, not a negotiation."
- reylas 1y ago
  I understand what you are saying, but not what I am getting at. If you were a developer and had a choice between a "one-time fee" with Apple taking 30% vs "free to download" but redirect to an outside payment system, which one would you chose? I am worried that now game companies are incentivized to abandon "initial purchase" games/apps and go the "loot-box, subscription" route. Is this the final nail in the pay one time for games coffin?
  - SSLy 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]