4 ms·

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

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".
        JustExAWS 1y ago
        And the original official Tetris game was $0.99 ad free one time purchase as was classic Angry Birds
      - josephg 1y ago
        I bought GoodNotes 5 and love it. One time purchase, and a great little app. Now GoodNotes 6 is out. Their “most popular plan” is an annual subscription. I just tried to look up how expensive it is - but their pricing page[1] lists a bunch of different plans available. It doesn’t list the actual prices. (Why on earth does a notes app have multiple usage plans? Horrible.) They have a “one time payment” option. But I thought that’s what I already bought from the App Store when I bought it a couple years ago. I guess not. My totally fine, currently working version (v5) will probably randomly stop working at some point in the future and I’ll lose all my notes, because I suppose breaking totally working software is good business. Wtf. https://www.goodnotes.com/pricing https://www.goodnotes.com/pricing
        maccard 1y ago
        That pricing page is absolutely abysmal and indefensible, but has nothing to do with what the parent comment said (small one time purchase vs larger recurring subscription). There's a one time payment option (with no price, which is shitty) on that page for v6. That seems like it has exactly the functionality you wanted? > They have a “one time payment” option. But I thought that’s what I already bought from the App Store when I bought it a couple years ago. You said yourself you bought GoodNotes 5, and this is for GoodNotes 6.
      - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
        There's thousands of games targeted at children that are exactly this. There are publishers that drop reskin after reskin of the same game all with individual subscriptions, and they constantly try to kids from one into the other. Then others clone that game and do the same thing. Fluvsies is an App Store virus.
        insane_dreamer 1y ago
        And nobody is going to drop their prices because of the ruling. This may be great for some publishers, but doesn’t benefit the consumer in any way. In fact as i consumer id much rather deal with Apple’s payment system than a separate payment mechanism for each app, especially when it comes to cancelling, changes etc
  - JustExAWS 1y ago
    If you’re an Indy developer making less than 1 million a year, you are paying 15%. Is it really not worth 15% (where if your product has value you should be able to charge enough to make up the difference) for credit card processing (3%-4%) and distribution?
    - protimewaster 1y ago
      I think the issue is not about what it's worth, but what they should be allowed to charge for. To me, the argument about "what it's worth" is fundamentally wrong. As an extreme example, if some company found a way to charge me $100 every day or my head would explode, that obviously is worth $100 to most of us. However, I'm currently not having to pay any company to prevent my head from exploding, so maybe that's just not something I should have to pay for.
      - JustExAWS 1y ago
        Name one platform or even retail physical goods store that has less than a 15% markup from the wholesale price?
        AlexandrB 1y ago
        Why is a middleman required at all? Epic seems happy to process their own payments - they don't need a "platform" to do it for them.
        JustExAWS 1y ago
        Epic tried side loading on Android and not use Google Play. That ended up being a horrible financial disaster and a security nightmare. https://www.mcafee.com/blogs/mobile-security/fornite-android-app-vulnerability/ https://www.mcafee.com/blogs/mobile-security/fornite-android...
        protimewaster 1y ago
        As I said, my point is just that it's not something I should be obligated to pay for. But, if you're looking for counterexamples to show it can be done for less than a 15% cut, they're around. Almost every eBay category charges less than 15%, for example. And, as another user pointed out, Epic takes less than 15%. AliExpress charges 5-8% on average. Etsy is I think something like 6.5%.
  - api 1y ago
    Yeah, it's mobile, so it's not all games with loot boxes and escalating pay to play. Some of it is infinite slop addictionware, brain rot, gambling, payday loan apps, shovelware, and spyware. Apple sucks for their monopoly tactics, but it's very hard for me to have any sympathy for the rest of the mobile ecosystem. It's probably the most exploitative toxic software ecosystem.
- eptcyka 1y ago
  It is everyone, not just loot boxes. Apple could put an end to lootboxes if they wanted to.
fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
Why not? I'd personally never go somewhere else to pay for your subscription or content. Maybe if you were a big time player that didn't have an appealing alternative, like Netflix. But for the average app, like Planta or Breethe, I'm just switching to an app that has an in app purchase if yours doesn't. Semi-related, but I also always pick an app that has family sharing of subscription over one that doesn't too (Headspace --> Breethe)
- protimewaster 1y ago
  The wording here seems, to me, to have some silly limitations. For example, there are apps I have thought would make a nice gift for a friend before, and the easiest way to do this is to buy an unlock key and send it to them. But, with these rules, I guess the goal is that I have to send them a gift card instead? I'll just not bother and get them something else.
  - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
    Probably. Though you could make the argument that it would be more complex than it's worth. There's regional issues, like can I redeem your gift code from cdkeys.ru in the US. Can I return the app afterward if I don't want it for a 160 rubles credit? They might already need to handle that stuff for gift cards though.
  - layer8 1y ago
    Apple has an integrated “gift this app” function in their app store. I’m not sure you can use it for in-app purchases, however.
- Nathanba 1y ago
  That makes no sense, using Paypal or Stripe is very normal on the web. There is no reason why it should be any different in apps except for Apple trying to gaslight us.
  - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
    My personal opinion makes no sense? I don't really care if an app only has subscriptions or purchases through their website, I'm just saying that I wouldn't use it when there's an easier and more convenient alternative available. Adopting the language of the abused to describe being inconvenienced by the company that makes your phone is uhh, something.
Aaargh20318 1y ago
> Oof, I don't envy app developers who have to tolerate this bullshit You're confusing developers with publishers. Developers love this shit, one simple API that's built in to the OS and you can support payments worldwide instead of having to integrate with dozens of payment providers all with their own quirky APIs. Now for publishers, who want to maximise their profit margins and who don't have to actually write the code to do all those integrations, that's a different story. But I don't think there is a single developer in the world who enjoys integrating with 3rd party payment services.
- haukilup 1y ago
  Hard disagree. Developers are often forced to integrate with both IAP and backend workarounds, which creates more effort and edge cases. Maybe you meant to specify a specific subset of iOS-only developers?
- troupo 1y ago
  > Now for publishers, As if there are no developers who are also publishers.
  - Aaargh20318 1y ago
    If you're an indie developer who self-publishes, do you want to spend your time working on your app or on payment platform integrations? Especially the smaller self-publishing developers won't benefit from this at all. It's just the large publishers like Epic who can afford the developer resources to build their own payment systems who have something to gain here. Apple’s rules leveled the playing field. All this ruling does is give a competitive advantage to the big fish.
    - troupo 1y ago
      > If you're an indie developer who self-publishes, do you want to spend your time working on your app or on payment platform integrations? Integrating with Stripe is easy. Or with Mollie. Or with... > Especially the smaller self-publishing developers won't benefit from this at all. Indeed. No one will benefit from not paying 30% of revenue to Apple.
mschuster91 1y ago
I get where Apple is coming from, though, and it's not just the revenue stream. They want to make sure that if you spent money on something in the Apple ecosystem, you can enjoy that for as long as you got a working device with that app installed. Allowing third-party services like license keys introduce a dependency on the vendor to keep their servers up and running.
- pjc50 1y ago
  .. well, apart from Apple's own ability to vaporize apps from the store at no notice, and their own upgrade treadmill which tends to cause low-revenue apps to be dropped. No, it's just because someone other than Apple is earning money, and this will probably also end up being overturned.
- bugfix 1y ago
  Apple wants to make sure they get a 30% cut if you spend money on anything within their ecosystem — that's all they really care about. There are several reports of people having their entire accounts banned, effectively losing access to everything they paid for. And it's basically impossible to get your account back.
pjc50 1y ago
.. wait, so what exactly is allowed for "steering" to your own website, if not subscriptions or content?

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".
      - JustExAWS 1y ago
        And the original official Tetris game was $0.99 ad free one time purchase as was classic Angry Birds
    - josephg 1y ago
      I bought GoodNotes 5 and love it. One time purchase, and a great little app. Now GoodNotes 6 is out. Their “most popular plan” is an annual subscription. I just tried to look up how expensive it is - but their pricing page[1] lists a bunch of different plans available. It doesn’t list the actual prices. (Why on earth does a notes app have multiple usage plans? Horrible.) They have a “one time payment” option. But I thought that’s what I already bought from the App Store when I bought it a couple years ago. I guess not. My totally fine, currently working version (v5) will probably randomly stop working at some point in the future and I’ll lose all my notes, because I suppose breaking totally working software is good business. Wtf. https://www.goodnotes.com/pricing https://www.goodnotes.com/pricing
      - maccard 1y ago
        That pricing page is absolutely abysmal and indefensible, but has nothing to do with what the parent comment said (small one time purchase vs larger recurring subscription). There's a one time payment option (with no price, which is shitty) on that page for v6. That seems like it has exactly the functionality you wanted? > They have a “one time payment” option. But I thought that’s what I already bought from the App Store when I bought it a couple years ago. You said yourself you bought GoodNotes 5, and this is for GoodNotes 6.
    - fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
      There's thousands of games targeted at children that are exactly this. There are publishers that drop reskin after reskin of the same game all with individual subscriptions, and they constantly try to kids from one into the other. Then others clone that game and do the same thing. Fluvsies is an App Store virus.
      - insane_dreamer 1y ago
        And nobody is going to drop their prices because of the ruling. This may be great for some publishers, but doesn’t benefit the consumer in any way. In fact as i consumer id much rather deal with Apple’s payment system than a separate payment mechanism for each app, especially when it comes to cancelling, changes etc
- JustExAWS 1y ago
  If you’re an Indy developer making less than 1 million a year, you are paying 15%. Is it really not worth 15% (where if your product has value you should be able to charge enough to make up the difference) for credit card processing (3%-4%) and distribution?
  - protimewaster 1y ago
    I think the issue is not about what it's worth, but what they should be allowed to charge for. To me, the argument about "what it's worth" is fundamentally wrong. As an extreme example, if some company found a way to charge me $100 every day or my head would explode, that obviously is worth $100 to most of us. However, I'm currently not having to pay any company to prevent my head from exploding, so maybe that's just not something I should have to pay for.
    - JustExAWS 1y ago
      Name one platform or even retail physical goods store that has less than a 15% markup from the wholesale price?
      - AlexandrB 1y ago
        Why is a middleman required at all? Epic seems happy to process their own payments - they don't need a "platform" to do it for them.
        JustExAWS 1y ago
        Epic tried side loading on Android and not use Google Play. That ended up being a horrible financial disaster and a security nightmare. https://www.mcafee.com/blogs/mobile-security/fornite-android-app-vulnerability/ https://www.mcafee.com/blogs/mobile-security/fornite-android...
      - protimewaster 1y ago
        As I said, my point is just that it's not something I should be obligated to pay for. But, if you're looking for counterexamples to show it can be done for less than a 15% cut, they're around. Almost every eBay category charges less than 15%, for example. And, as another user pointed out, Epic takes less than 15%. AliExpress charges 5-8% on average. Etsy is I think something like 6.5%.
- api 1y ago
  Yeah, it's mobile, so it's not all games with loot boxes and escalating pay to play. Some of it is infinite slop addictionware, brain rot, gambling, payday loan apps, shovelware, and spyware. Apple sucks for their monopoly tactics, but it's very hard for me to have any sympathy for the rest of the mobile ecosystem. It's probably the most exploitative toxic software ecosystem.
eptcyka 1y ago
It is everyone, not just loot boxes. Apple could put an end to lootboxes if they wanted to.

fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago

Why not? I'd personally never go somewhere else to pay for your subscription or content. Maybe if you were a big time player that didn't have an appealing alternative, like Netflix. But for the average app, like Planta or Breethe, I'm just switching to an app that has an in app purchase if yours doesn't. Semi-related, but I also always pick an app that has family sharing of subscription over one that doesn't too (Headspace --> Breethe)

protimewaster 1y ago
The wording here seems, to me, to have some silly limitations. For example, there are apps I have thought would make a nice gift for a friend before, and the easiest way to do this is to buy an unlock key and send it to them. But, with these rules, I guess the goal is that I have to send them a gift card instead? I'll just not bother and get them something else.
- fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
  Probably. Though you could make the argument that it would be more complex than it's worth. There's regional issues, like can I redeem your gift code from cdkeys.ru in the US. Can I return the app afterward if I don't want it for a 160 rubles credit? They might already need to handle that stuff for gift cards though.
- layer8 1y ago
  Apple has an integrated “gift this app” function in their app store. I’m not sure you can use it for in-app purchases, however.
Nathanba 1y ago
That makes no sense, using Paypal or Stripe is very normal on the web. There is no reason why it should be any different in apps except for Apple trying to gaslight us.
- fkyoureadthedoc 1y ago
  My personal opinion makes no sense? I don't really care if an app only has subscriptions or purchases through their website, I'm just saying that I wouldn't use it when there's an easier and more convenient alternative available. Adopting the language of the abused to describe being inconvenienced by the company that makes your phone is uhh, something.

Aaargh20318 1y ago

> Oof, I don't envy app developers who have to tolerate this bullshit You're confusing developers with publishers. Developers love this shit, one simple API that's built in to the OS and you can support payments worldwide instead of having to integrate with dozens of payment providers all with their own quirky APIs. Now for publishers, who want to maximise their profit margins and who don't have to actually write the code to do all those integrations, that's a different story. But I don't think there is a single developer in the world who enjoys integrating with 3rd party payment services.

haukilup 1y ago
Hard disagree. Developers are often forced to integrate with both IAP and backend workarounds, which creates more effort and edge cases. Maybe you meant to specify a specific subset of iOS-only developers?
troupo 1y ago
> Now for publishers, As if there are no developers who are also publishers.
- Aaargh20318 1y ago
  If you're an indie developer who self-publishes, do you want to spend your time working on your app or on payment platform integrations? Especially the smaller self-publishing developers won't benefit from this at all. It's just the large publishers like Epic who can afford the developer resources to build their own payment systems who have something to gain here. Apple’s rules leveled the playing field. All this ruling does is give a competitive advantage to the big fish.
  - troupo 1y ago
    > If you're an indie developer who self-publishes, do you want to spend your time working on your app or on payment platform integrations? Integrating with Stripe is easy. Or with Mollie. Or with... > Especially the smaller self-publishing developers won't benefit from this at all. Indeed. No one will benefit from not paying 30% of revenue to Apple.

mschuster91 1y ago

I get where Apple is coming from, though, and it's not just the revenue stream. They want to make sure that if you spent money on something in the Apple ecosystem, you can enjoy that for as long as you got a working device with that app installed. Allowing third-party services like license keys introduce a dependency on the vendor to keep their servers up and running.

pjc50 1y ago
.. well, apart from Apple's own ability to vaporize apps from the store at no notice, and their own upgrade treadmill which tends to cause low-revenue apps to be dropped. No, it's just because someone other than Apple is earning money, and this will probably also end up being overturned.
bugfix 1y ago
Apple wants to make sure they get a 30% cut if you spend money on anything within their ecosystem — that's all they really care about. There are several reports of people having their entire accounts banned, effectively losing access to everything they paid for. And it's basically impossible to get your account back.

pjc50 1y ago

.. wait, so what exactly is allowed for "steering" to your own website, if not subscriptions or content?