5 ms·

Smart that developers are quickly updating their apps while Apple is still appealing the decision. Once users get used to the added purchase options and cheaper

by paxys 2y ago

Smart that developers are quickly updating their apps while Apple is still appealing the decision. Once users get used to the added purchase options and cheaper pricing there's no going back, regardless of what the final ruling is.

beastman82 2y ago
those users will stick with their Apple products and lose the ability to "get the book" (so to speak). So yes, there is going back.
- tantalor 2y ago
  > lose the ability What, why? They can complete the purchase flow in a browser instead of the app. What is lost?
  - ewidar 2y ago
    They mean that if apple wins the appeal, the in-app new purchase flow will be removed but users will likely not leave the apple ecosystem
    - nguyenkien 2y ago
      Bút now, they know the web offer cheaper. And likely search before give Apple 30% on other apps
gjsman-1000 2y ago
This also, long term, could kill the 30% commission. Why, as a developer, would you be stupid enough to launch your app as a paid product on the App Store? Your discoverability is massively impaired, we already knew that. You also give Apple 30% of your cash. Free app + external web purchase = maximum discoverability at 0% tax. When things get more advanced, that web purchase link will be an authenticated URL - meaning one click to open the web browser already logged in. Register a protocol handler, remember their card information (or, ironically, use Apple Pay), and one tap in the app, a flash of the web browser, and they’re back in the app with purchase complete. Apple needs to address this at WWDC. In the US and EU, there are zero, heck, negative advantages of selling on the App Store. All pain, all fees, no benefit of any kind. That’s a big deal.
- digianarchist 2y ago
  The likely outcome is that Apple will reduce the 30% to something at least marginally competitive with alternative payment systems.
  - isodev 2y ago
    The entire “store” model needs to go away. Phones are computers now, just let people download and install whatever they want or need.
    - burnte 2y ago
      Apple will never do this voluntarily.
    - threeseed 2y ago
      > Phones are computers now No one but irrelevant nerds think this. And the market has demonstrated this time and time again. Most people think of phones as being console-like entertainment devices. And aren't interested in scams, malware, virus checkers etc that are needed in a free for all model.
      - shakna 2y ago
        Malware and virus protection apps are already among the most installed across both Android and iOS.
        threeseed 2y ago
        At least here in Australia. Neither are in the top 50 for either Android or iOS. And on iOS there are no virus protection apps, period.
        shakna 2y ago
        Here in Australia, Samsung Device Care is in the top 50. [0] In fact, its more often installed than Netflix. [0] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.samsung.android.lool https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.samsung.an... > And on iOS there are no virus protection apps, period. iOS has Avast, Avira, Lookout, etc. There are many, many virus protection apps on iOS.
sundaeofshock 2y ago
Why would a developer lower their prices? Most people are not aware that Apple takes a cut of all sales. Further, the app developers have already set their prices to maximize revenue. Also, in instances like Amazon, they have already set a cross-platform price that I suspect they won’t want to touch. Bottom line: I wouldn’t expect many discounts here.
- wmf 2y ago
  It was mostly never about lower prices. Apps like Kindle and Fortnite just didn't allow in-app purchasing at all and now they will.
- keenmaster 2y ago
  The market ultimately determines the discount, not the company. In a competitive market, some of the gains from Apple’s change will accrue to the consumer, and some will accrue to the developer. What % goes to whom depends on demand elasticity. Even if a particular list price doesn’t change, I’d expect more frequent and deeper sales. In a less competitive market for a good or service (due to lack of antitrust enforcement) there should still be discounts, in proportion to the residual competitiveness. E.g. the mobile game market is very competitive, so I’d expect more discounts vs. the video entertainment market where there has been a lot of aggregation.
- no_wizard 2y ago
  What you're seeing is companies that can - and many actually do this - offer you different pricing between in app purchasing and their website are now offering you a link to their website where you can sign up for the cheaper price. One notable example of this in practice is Spotify, where its cheaper to sign up on the web than via the app. I've also heard Netflix has suspended all in app subscriptions and is only going to link to their website for sign ups. I'm unsure if that will translate into savings, but I suspect you're going to see more of this behavior as well. The 30% / 15% tax is very real and companies that don't have to pay that will be better positioned in the long run, so I imagine even if the price is the same, they'll be able to pocket more revenue doing this as well I suspect this won't affect games much, except for the exceedingly big ones like Fortnite, but I treat that as a whole separate sector at this point.
digianarchist 2y ago
Is anyone confident that Apple will win on appeal? By the effort developers putting into payment-flows I would say they aren't, but depending on the volume it could be purely for short-term gain.
- threeseed 2y ago
  Courts don't care about the amount of effort developers are spending to take advantage of the window before an appeal has been ruled on.
  - techjamie 2y ago
    I think the implication that is being made here is that the other companies have examined their odds, and determined that the odds are good enough that they would dedicate the resources. Which, presumably, means their legal teams examine the case and think that the appeal won't succeed. Though there is always the possibility that it was relatively inexpensive to implement, and the increased sales in the meanwhile during the legal battle will outweigh the cost of changing it.
znpy 2y ago
It would be way smarter if the prices were discounted of something like 20% when brought through the app… if apple wins the appeal they (aws and others) can now blame apple and shift the public perception of apple
wmf 2y ago
Apple will change the rules back in seconds if the court decision is stayed. Literally billions are at stake here.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  They might, but they'll have lost the "it's for consumer's good" battle through and through. 4 years ago some people were still swallowing the security or privacy argument, and users didn't understand what they were missing. This time any of these facades will be broken to death.
  - redczar 2y ago
    I buy the security and privacy argument. I don’t want to deal with anyone other than Apple for refunds, cancellations, etc. I don’t trust anyone else to make these things easy.
    - gjsman-1000 2y ago
      Then you can happily tell Apple to fix it. Apple already has a system for this called Apple Pay, and it’s royalty free on top of regular credit card networks. If it’s about security and privacy only, demand the ability to check out in an app using Apple’s own payment platform. Watch Apple squirm. As for the subscription convenience, I know how to make this even better. Let’s give Visa and Stripe a monopoly on all transactions, and then have them build a unified subscription portal. Awesomeness!
      - redczar 2y ago
        I don’t understand your points. If I buy things through the App store on iOS I know if there is a problem I can get relief very easily. I can easily cancel subscriptions without having to jump through a bunch of hoops. I prefer to keep things this way. You apparently don’t. As such we disagree.
    - tchalla 2y ago
      I feel you to a large disagree. That said Apple’s IAP has multiple issues https://bsky.app/profile/gergely.pragmaticengineer.com/post/3lobb4uocyk2g https://bsky.app/profile/gergely.pragmaticengineer.com/post/...
Workaccount2 2y ago
The consumers are...not sharp. They will blame the app developers for raising prices.
placardloop 2y ago
You’re right there won’t be any going back. You’re wrong about who is being smart about it. If Apple wins appeal, they’ll happily and quickly reinstate the fees. It’ll be the app developers who then get stuck paying the fees because, as you mentioned, their users will be used to it and there’s no going back.
- pjc50 2y ago
  The incredible thing is that under the anti-steering rules, removing the button and providing any explanation would result in the app being banned from the store. The extent to which "it's our platform so you don't have any rights" has been applied is ridiculous.
- gamblor956 2y ago
  "If Apple wins the appeal" Might as well ask if unicorns are real. Apple only wins the appeal if they bribe the judges. The only reason they've gotten away with it for so long is the U.S. DOJ was unwilling to enforce antitrust laws after the Microsoft debacle.
redbell 2y ago
> developers are quickly updating their apps This means a lot! It reveals how long developers were waiting for this day to come.
msh 2y ago
Amazon have already removed the link once so why not again. Originally in the kindle app there was a link to get books, which opened safari, which they later removed.

by paxys 2y ago

beastman82 2y ago

those users will stick with their Apple products and lose the ability to "get the book" (so to speak). So yes, there is going back.

tantalor 2y ago
> lose the ability What, why? They can complete the purchase flow in a browser instead of the app. What is lost?
- ewidar 2y ago
  They mean that if apple wins the appeal, the in-app new purchase flow will be removed but users will likely not leave the apple ecosystem
  - nguyenkien 2y ago
    Bút now, they know the web offer cheaper. And likely search before give Apple 30% on other apps

gjsman-1000 2y ago

This also, long term, could kill the 30% commission. Why, as a developer, would you be stupid enough to launch your app as a paid product on the App Store? Your discoverability is massively impaired, we already knew that. You also give Apple 30% of your cash. Free app + external web purchase = maximum discoverability at 0% tax. When things get more advanced, that web purchase link will be an authenticated URL - meaning one click to open the web browser already logged in. Register a protocol handler, remember their card information (or, ironically, use Apple Pay), and one tap in the app, a flash of the web browser, and they’re back in the app with purchase complete. Apple needs to address this at WWDC. In the US and EU, there are zero, heck, negative advantages of selling on the App Store. All pain, all fees, no benefit of any kind. That’s a big deal.

digianarchist 2y ago
The likely outcome is that Apple will reduce the 30% to something at least marginally competitive with alternative payment systems.
- isodev 2y ago
  The entire “store” model needs to go away. Phones are computers now, just let people download and install whatever they want or need.
  - burnte 2y ago
    Apple will never do this voluntarily.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    > Phones are computers now No one but irrelevant nerds think this. And the market has demonstrated this time and time again. Most people think of phones as being console-like entertainment devices. And aren't interested in scams, malware, virus checkers etc that are needed in a free for all model.
    - shakna 2y ago
      Malware and virus protection apps are already among the most installed across both Android and iOS.
      - threeseed 2y ago
        At least here in Australia. Neither are in the top 50 for either Android or iOS. And on iOS there are no virus protection apps, period.
        shakna 2y ago
        Here in Australia, Samsung Device Care is in the top 50. [0] In fact, its more often installed than Netflix. [0] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.samsung.android.lool https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.samsung.an... > And on iOS there are no virus protection apps, period. iOS has Avast, Avira, Lookout, etc. There are many, many virus protection apps on iOS.

sundaeofshock 2y ago

Why would a developer lower their prices? Most people are not aware that Apple takes a cut of all sales. Further, the app developers have already set their prices to maximize revenue. Also, in instances like Amazon, they have already set a cross-platform price that I suspect they won’t want to touch. Bottom line: I wouldn’t expect many discounts here.

wmf 2y ago
It was mostly never about lower prices. Apps like Kindle and Fortnite just didn't allow in-app purchasing at all and now they will.
keenmaster 2y ago
The market ultimately determines the discount, not the company. In a competitive market, some of the gains from Apple’s change will accrue to the consumer, and some will accrue to the developer. What % goes to whom depends on demand elasticity. Even if a particular list price doesn’t change, I’d expect more frequent and deeper sales. In a less competitive market for a good or service (due to lack of antitrust enforcement) there should still be discounts, in proportion to the residual competitiveness. E.g. the mobile game market is very competitive, so I’d expect more discounts vs. the video entertainment market where there has been a lot of aggregation.
no_wizard 2y ago
What you're seeing is companies that can - and many actually do this - offer you different pricing between in app purchasing and their website are now offering you a link to their website where you can sign up for the cheaper price. One notable example of this in practice is Spotify, where its cheaper to sign up on the web than via the app. I've also heard Netflix has suspended all in app subscriptions and is only going to link to their website for sign ups. I'm unsure if that will translate into savings, but I suspect you're going to see more of this behavior as well. The 30% / 15% tax is very real and companies that don't have to pay that will be better positioned in the long run, so I imagine even if the price is the same, they'll be able to pocket more revenue doing this as well I suspect this won't affect games much, except for the exceedingly big ones like Fortnite, but I treat that as a whole separate sector at this point.

digianarchist 2y ago

Is anyone confident that Apple will win on appeal? By the effort developers putting into payment-flows I would say they aren't, but depending on the volume it could be purely for short-term gain.

threeseed 2y ago
Courts don't care about the amount of effort developers are spending to take advantage of the window before an appeal has been ruled on.
- techjamie 2y ago
  I think the implication that is being made here is that the other companies have examined their odds, and determined that the odds are good enough that they would dedicate the resources. Which, presumably, means their legal teams examine the case and think that the appeal won't succeed. Though there is always the possibility that it was relatively inexpensive to implement, and the increased sales in the meanwhile during the legal battle will outweigh the cost of changing it.

znpy 2y ago

It would be way smarter if the prices were discounted of something like 20% when brought through the app… if apple wins the appeal they (aws and others) can now blame apple and shift the public perception of apple

wmf 2y ago

Apple will change the rules back in seconds if the court decision is stayed. Literally billions are at stake here.

makeitdouble 2y ago
They might, but they'll have lost the "it's for consumer's good" battle through and through. 4 years ago some people were still swallowing the security or privacy argument, and users didn't understand what they were missing. This time any of these facades will be broken to death.
- redczar 2y ago
  I buy the security and privacy argument. I don’t want to deal with anyone other than Apple for refunds, cancellations, etc. I don’t trust anyone else to make these things easy.
  - gjsman-1000 2y ago
    Then you can happily tell Apple to fix it. Apple already has a system for this called Apple Pay, and it’s royalty free on top of regular credit card networks. If it’s about security and privacy only, demand the ability to check out in an app using Apple’s own payment platform. Watch Apple squirm. As for the subscription convenience, I know how to make this even better. Let’s give Visa and Stripe a monopoly on all transactions, and then have them build a unified subscription portal. Awesomeness!
    - redczar 2y ago
      I don’t understand your points. If I buy things through the App store on iOS I know if there is a problem I can get relief very easily. I can easily cancel subscriptions without having to jump through a bunch of hoops. I prefer to keep things this way. You apparently don’t. As such we disagree.
  - tchalla 2y ago
    I feel you to a large disagree. That said Apple’s IAP has multiple issues https://bsky.app/profile/gergely.pragmaticengineer.com/post/3lobb4uocyk2g https://bsky.app/profile/gergely.pragmaticengineer.com/post/...

Workaccount2 2y ago

The consumers are...not sharp. They will blame the app developers for raising prices.

placardloop 2y ago

You’re right there won’t be any going back. You’re wrong about who is being smart about it. If Apple wins appeal, they’ll happily and quickly reinstate the fees. It’ll be the app developers who then get stuck paying the fees because, as you mentioned, their users will be used to it and there’s no going back.

pjc50 2y ago
The incredible thing is that under the anti-steering rules, removing the button and providing any explanation would result in the app being banned from the store. The extent to which "it's our platform so you don't have any rights" has been applied is ridiculous.
gamblor956 2y ago
"If Apple wins the appeal" Might as well ask if unicorns are real. Apple only wins the appeal if they bribe the judges. The only reason they've gotten away with it for so long is the U.S. DOJ was unwilling to enforce antitrust laws after the Microsoft debacle.

redbell 2y ago

> developers are quickly updating their apps This means a lot! It reveals how long developers were waiting for this day to come.

msh 2y ago

Amazon have already removed the link once so why not again. Originally in the kindle app there was a link to get books, which opened safari, which they later removed.