
Apple: Person-to-person experiences do not have to use in-app purchase - BigBalli
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
======
dj_mc_merlin
> We will reject apps for any content or behavior that we believe is over the
> line. What line, you ask? Well, as a Supreme Court Justice once said, “I’ll
> know it when I see it”. And we think that you will also know it when you
> cross it.

This line makes my blood boil. Futhermore, later they define disallowed sexual
content as:

> 1.1.4 Overtly sexual or pornographic material, defined by Webster’s
> Dictionary as "explicit descriptions or displays of sexual organs or
> activities intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional
> feelings."

Do they not know from which ruling that quote comes from?

~~~
ciarannolan
I can't believe they were dumb enough to put that SCOTUS line in this.

It just plays into their current "meh, here's some rules but we'll do whatever
we want anyway" image.

~~~
_jal
I'm really surprised. Did Apple shake up their PR or legal flacks? The
language they've used recently (I'm thinking of the Epic stuff, too) feels
different than their famously cool, considered tone; looser, more assertive,
and much easier to argue with.

~~~
smnrchrds
I disagree. They have always been this arrogant. You are just noticing it
right now. Do you remember when they essentially said _don 't run to the press
if we don't allow your app, it won't help you_, which I personally interpreted
as _or else_? Or how almost every time someone criticizes Apple they sandwich
a one-sentence criticism between 50 sentences of praise because they know the
cost of not doing that could be their entire business? Since the launch of
iPhone, Apple has been the 800lb gorilla in the room and has acted like it.

EDIT: From App Store Review Guidelines on September 2014:

> _" If your App is rejected, we have a Review Board that you can appeal to.
> If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps."_

[https://web.archive.org/web/20140903022336/https://developer...](https://web.archive.org/web/20140903022336/https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/)

~~~
jjeaff
Which is such a lie, because going to the press is exactly what gets a lot of
apps re-evaluated and accepted.

~~~
dclowd9901
Eh, it _can_ be a lie. This is some form of the quandary “if you owe the bank
a million dollars, you’re in trouble; if you owe the bank a billion dollars,
the bank is in trouble.”

99% of app devs will not benefit from “running to the press.” Those that will
will know it for certain.

~~~
jjeaff
I've seen apps get their decisions reversed simply due to a post becoming
popular on HN or Reddit. You don't have to be a major player for public
shaming to work against apple.

------
eadan
Relevant section:

3.1.3(d) Person-to-Person Experiences: If your app enables the purchase of
realtime person-to-person experiences between two individuals (for example
tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness
training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect
those payments. One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must use in-
app purchase.

This is huge news. Being able to use third-party payments methods to bypass
Apple's 30% charge is essential for service driven marketplace apps. Classpass
and AirBnB bumped into this issue [0], but, I wonder if this exception will
apply for them?

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/technology/apple-app-
stor...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/technology/apple-app-store-airbnb-
classpass.html)

Edit: In excitement, I missed the last sentence; group services aren't covered
by the exception :(

~~~
jarjoura
> One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must use in-app purchase.

WUT?! This is so arbitrary and petty. So we're supposed to feel thankful that
the all mighty Apple is allowing 1 on 1 personal fitness trainers and tutors
but not build something that is scalable?

~~~
reaperducer
_This is so arbitrary and petty_

It sounds like Apple is trying to keep from becoming the new backpage.com.

~~~
bigtones
No, it's so that if Ticketmaster wants to do in-app purchases for concert
tickets, Apple gets 30%

~~~
Karliss
Aren't concert tickets "Goods and Services Outside of the App:"? Thinking
about it more, aren't most person-to-person experiences outside the app?

~~~
diebeforei485
Not if they are virtual concerts, which have exploded in popularity in 2020.

------
mthoms
Here's a diff of the document. I'm not sure if it works on mobile:

[https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20200911173859/202009011909...](https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20200911173859/20200901190956/https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/)

What catches my eye, other than the "person to person experiences" and game
streaming changes is the complete removal of the following clause in section
3.1.3(b) "Multiplatform Services":

>You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing
method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other
purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase.

To me, this was the most draconian rule in the entire agreement since it
governed how you could communicate with your customers _outside of your app_
(such as on your own website). IANAL, but this change seems to allow
mentioning the 30% Apple cut to your users and nudging them towards
alternatives.

~~~
megablast
It says you can not treat apple customers any different to other customers.

~~~
mthoms
Apple has used that clause to muzzle any mention of the 30% fee... even
outside of Apple's ecosystem (eg. on your own mailing list).

~~~
xsmasher
Citation? I have heard about rejection for in-app mentions but not for out-of-
band messages.

------
adamsmark
Platforms need to be regulated and not with the anti-trust laws created to
deal with industries before software even existed.

We need a new Sherman or Clayton act specifically for platforms. You can split
them out, social media platforms over X users are regulated in this way.
Marketplaces over x users are regulated in this way.

We cannot rely on platform owners to update policy in response to mounting
public pressure. Because you get things like this - rules on Apple's platform
that won't be applied to significant platforms, just the developers who are
too small to have any influence.

~~~
macspoofing
>Platforms need to be regulated

No. God no.

Regulation has its place. But regulation is also a slooow bureaucratic
process. Regulators have no incentive to change with market conditions and in
a fast moving industry will be a hindrance in no time. They also increase the
cost of development benefiting the big guys that can afford an army of HR,
Regulatory and Legal people to handle compliance.

~~~
clusterfish
We do need regulation that will protect developers and consumers from the huge
monopolistic power of platform owners like Apple, Facebook, and Google. The
regulation would be targeted specifically at those behemoths and not at small
fry developers, since those don't have significant market power.

Today you don't need an army of legal people to deal with existing
anticompetitive regulations if you're not a behemoth yourself. To argue that
regulation designed to protect from monopolists will actually help those
monopolists by its mere existence is ridiculous.

------
nimish
This sort of arbitrary judgments-from-heaven is a sign of monopolistic power.
You only have a Hobson's choice when it comes to the app store.

~~~
eplanit
Yes. This kindly-worded "Our way or the highway" is a hallmark: "If the App
Store model and guidelines are not best for your app or business idea that’s
okay, we provide Safari for a great web experience too."

~~~
paxys
"We provide Safari for a great web experience too, but don't implement any
standard APIs like push notifications, data persistence, bluetooth, NFC, add
to homescreen prompt, icons, launch screen, themes that would actually make it
a worthwhile alternative to the app store" is what they should have said.

~~~
scarface74
There has been the ability add to the home screen since day 1. There were
plenty of website that calculated where the “share” button was in the browser
app and had a pop up to add to the home screen.

~~~
paxys
There is no option to do so from any other browser other than Safari. And even
in Safari, the most a website can do is guide users through the open settings
-> swipe -> scroll -> click button -> enter title -> hit ok flow.

~~~
scarface74
There is no “go to settings”.

Click the share button, Scroll up, click “Add to home screen”, click OK. The
title is the title of the page.

~~~
paxys
And how do I do it from Chrome?

~~~
scarface74
So now that you were factually proven to be incorrect you want to move the
goal posts?

The initial post that we both responded to clearly stated Safari.

> We provide _Safari_ for a great web experience too, but don't implement any
> standard APIs like push notifications, data persistence, bluetooth, NFC,
> _add to homescreen prompt_ , icons, launch screen, themes that would
> actually make it a worthwhile alternative to the app store" is what they
> should have said.

~~~
paxys
My initial argument was that Apple does not provide standard APIs - and they
don't - so I don't see how there is any moving of goal posts. There is no way
for a website to prompt a dialog to add itself to the home screen, despite it
existing in the HTML spec and all other major browsers. In addition to that
Apple forces other browsers to use its own web view, and doesn't expose the
add to home screen functionality there either.

~~~
scarface74
Whether that was your “initial argument” or not, your statement

> And even in Safari, the most a website can do is guide users through the
> open settings -> swipe -> scroll -> click button -> enter title -> hit ok
> flow.

Was wrong.

Also, it’s coming to iOS 14

[https://caniuse.com/web-app-manifest](https://caniuse.com/web-app-manifest)

~~~
Dylan16807
You're talking past each other.

Look back at
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24447692](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24447692)

There are _two_ complaints in that comment.

You addressed one of those complaints, showing it to be wrong. You did not
address the other complaint, and it was not "moving the goalpoats" to repeat
it.

> Also, it’s coming to iOS 14

Good.

~~~
scarface74
Let’s go with his initial complaints.

> push notifications,

Abused by spammers even on supposed reputable sites like PC Mag and Toms
Hardware. I’ve made the mistake of clicking on Ok on my computer since every
site now forces you to acknowledge that they use cookies. It’s back to the
toolbars of old level of annoyance. I would be okay if only websites that were
added to your home screen could ask for permission.

> data persistent.

iOS has supported localStorage since 2007

> bluetooth, NFC

How many “web apps” are really being held back by either? And Apple and to a
lesser extent Mozilla has said some of the standards are privacy invasive.

[https://www.infoq.com/news/2020/07/apple-fingerprinting-
priv...](https://www.infoq.com/news/2020/07/apple-fingerprinting-privacy/)

>add to homescreen prompt,

Already shown not to be true.

>icons

The icon when you add a web page to your home screen is the same that shows up
in your browser bar.

> launch Screen

Is this really stopping you from creating a PWA because you want a launch
screen?

But the larger question is if PWAs are so powerful, why aren’t Android
developers forgoing apps and just writing PWA’s in droves?

------
bww
It seems to me like Apple has created the appearance of a new exemption
without actually changing anything.

All of the example transactions in the guidelines (“tutoring students, medical
consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training”), are for real-world
services performed by people. In-App Purchases have always been specifically
and exclusively intended for digital content. The introduction for the IAP
section explains: “If you want to unlock features or functionality within your
app […] you must use in-app purchase.”

Apple Pay is the Apple-provided payment mechanism that has always been used
for real world goods and services on the App Store, for which all of the above
examples would qualify.

~~~
BillinghamJ
I think they're highlighting that they're specifically exempt when happening
entirely within the app - e.g. if the app provided the service via video chat.
Makes sense given a lot of those things are not currently happening in-person.

------
konschubert
Apple should just be forced to allow alternative app stores.

Yes, they will loose out on money and yes, this will dilute the iPhone
experience.

But come on - That company is worth 2 trillion and it’s holding a whole
economy hostage.

~~~
Razengan
> _a whole economy hostage._

iOS is not even near to the "whole economy" of mobile software.

Companies should just stop being based in the US.

With what’s happening to TikTok and this ridiculous push for a Communist-style
reappropriation of Apple’s platform, it seems that the US may no longer be a
safe place for businesses to become _too big_ in (except of course, the
ancient titans of oil, guns, pharmaceuticals etc. that have been happily
screwing the planet since forever..)

None of this indignation is really about protecting the people, is it, but
rather about taking a slice of the billion user pie, which Apple has
historically denied other companies ever since they refused to put AT&T
bloatware on the first iPhone.

~~~
konschubert
If a single company was putting up toll booths on every intersection AFTER
selling those roads to the public, then yea, call me a communist but I don’t
think that’s good for the economy.

And I don’t care if that company single-handedly invented roads - there should
a limit to how far you can milk the society you operate in.

~~~
Razengan
> _If a single company was putting up toll booths on every intersection_

Again, Apple is not the only company in this space and iOS is not the only
intersection/road/whatever analogy you want.

There are alternatives and companies like Epic are absolutely free to start
their own platform.

Honestly, all of this becomes much less complicated if you think of the iPhone
as an Xbox, PlayStation or Switch. iPhone is not the entire mobile industry,
it is one phone among hundreds.

Will you move for a forced break up of their exclusive stores too if
MS/Sony/Nintendo started allowing general-purpose apps on those consoles?
(They already have YouTube, Netflix, etc.)

iPads on the other hand may be a different story, given how Apple likes to
market them as general purpose computers, and the reason why they forked iOS
into iPadOS I think.

~~~
grumple
This isn’t about the iPhone, it’s about iOS, which is one os out of two. And
they have an absolute monopoly within iOS and on iPhones, while creating a
market which can and will be regulated and being a publicly traded company and
therefore subject to even more scrutiny and laws.

And people care a lot less about the consoles because they are a lot less
important to the economy. This is like McDonalds complaining about paying fair
wages and pointing to a two-location mom and pop shop and saying “but they do
it too!”. Classic whataboutism.

~~~
Razengan
> _And they have an absolute monopoly within iOS and on iPhones_

Apple have a monopoly....on Apple products..?

~~~
grumple
The interactions between companies, no matter what the contract or tos states,
are governed by law. Apple can’t build anything or run any aspect of their
business without the government saying ok.

And government has often ruled that anticompetitive behavior violates
antitrust law.

From the Sherman Act: “Every contract, combination in the form of trust or
otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several
States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.”

If Apple is restraining trade (which they obviously are according to any
reasonable interpretation, whether or not a court has yet ruled on it), they
are breaking the law. Obviously the courts have failed us before and they take
ages to rule on anything regardless, but I suspect Apple will lose in the long
run.

------
thewebcount
They say:

> Consider using Xcode to install your app on a device for free or use Ad Hoc
> distribution available to Apple Developer Program members.

Can anyone explain this to me? I have some AppleTV apps I’ve written for
myself. I can run them on my AppleTV but I have to reconnect to Xcode every 7
days to continue using them. It’s a pain in the butt. How can I install these
apps without a dev account and without having to reconnect to Xcode every 7
days?

~~~
andreasley
Here you go:
[https://help.apple.com/xcode/mac/current/#/dev7ccaf4d3c](https://help.apple.com/xcode/mac/current/#/dev7ccaf4d3c)

Ad Hoc provisioning profiles are usually only used for testing, since all of
the target devices have to be registered in your developer account before
signing the app. Also, Ad Hoc profiles expire after 12 months and the app
needs to be re-signed and installed again.

You can install the signed app by using Xcode or Apple Configurator or "over
the air" (see [https://dev.to/gualtierofr/ad-hoc-distribution-for-
ios-1524](https://dev.to/gualtierofr/ad-hoc-distribution-for-ios-1524) for an
example).

~~~
thewebcount
Oh, I see. The wording made it sound like there was a way to do it for free.
They mention installing onto a friend's device, but apparently that won't work
for free. Bummer. I can't justify the cost right now just for these few home
projects. What a pain.

------
tsycho
I am genuinely sad to write this:

Apple has become the most arrogant asshole company of all the tech giants.
They have forgotten the role that we developers played in making them the
largest company in the world. But in their moment of financial victory, they
have lost their soul.

:(

------
zaphar
Here is a question I have not seen a satisfactory answer for. Why is having an
App on iOS a must have? It seems like any discussion about the market fairness
of Apples policies requires a shared understanding of how necessary the
ecosystem actually is. If you can freely choose not to deploy to that
ecosystem then you can vote with your "wallet" so to speak. If you can't
freely choose however then there is an argument to be made regarding if they
distort the market unfairly.

~~~
itake
I own a small app and iOS's free organic app search results drive 98% of my
user base right now. I could see it being much more challenging to build an
app if you have to develop alternative marketing channels.

Personally, alternative marketing channels have yet to work for me.

~~~
zaphar
Do you also have an android app? What I'm asking I guess is not why do you
need the AppStore when you are on iOS. But more why do you have to be on iOS
in the first place?

~~~
itake
I have a react native app and it runs in both stores. The iOS users drive most
of my revenue. My app could not survive without the organic search traffic
from Apple.

I guess I was a bit misleading in my original comment. 98% of my users come
from iOS and Android organic search results. I haven't been able to find any
profitable non-store marketing channels.

~~~
Qahlel
iPhone users tend to buy "more" from store. Android users don't really care
about apps.

It's not Apple or Google. It's users who are paying.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Checking multiple sources, Google Play store revenue was a bit over half the
Apple App Store last year, so around the 8 billion mark for GPA and 14 billion
for AAS.

------
dozy
In case it's useful to any - here's a diff of what Apple changed since the
last update in March:
[https://gist.github.com/samdozor/637d21424cc3240b25fe5cd7007...](https://gist.github.com/samdozor/637d21424cc3240b25fe5cd70072dd1f/revisions)

------
ogre_codes
Seems like a lot of much overdue reform in here. In addition to the PtP Fixes,
they also fix some of the more egregious issues we've seen this year which Hey
and WordPress encountered.

Still a lot of room for improvement, but good to see they are moving in the
right direction.

------
projektfu
Oh, so they're saying that they don't need a 30% cut of items they neither
created nor sold? How magnanimous.

------
summerlight
I'm personally not okay with Apple to take a full control on the App Store,
but let's admit the reality and think about feasible options; then what would
be remedies that Apple doesn't have a good justification against? I think one
of the issue is information asymmetricity between Apple and customers.

* For each in-app purchase, Apple MUST explicitly highlights how much commission they're taking.

* For each in-app purchase, Apple MUST allow app developers to show alternative payment options available.

* Apple may review the alternative payment options and reject the app if it is implemented in an obviously unfair way against Apple IAP, but no other reasons. If it is violated, Apple MUST give a clear reason and actionable items to app developers within a reasonable time frame.

This doesn't require any technically complex changes but just gives strictly
more information to their customers. If the customers think it's justifiable,
then they will continue to use Apple's IAP. If not, they will go to the
developer's site. If the alternative is designed to be unfair against Apple,
at least they can have a chance to raise an objection. For the rest, let the
market decide.

~~~
olliej
For the last one you mean offering an alternative to IAP but it must be <= iap
price-commission?

------
trzeci
> 3.1.3(d) Person-to-Person Experiences: If your app enables the purchase of
> realtime person-to-person experiences between two individuals (for example
> tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness
> training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to
> collect those payments. One-to-few and one-to-many realtime experiences must
> use in-app purchas

In Sweden, via-app medical consultancy gets a standard way for this services
as a first - line support. Payment for this is fixed and goes to the registry,
where after certain amount of payments, you're getting free consultancy (It's
by the health care system). How they are going to handle that?

Too me this new guideline is like a wide net - most of top application will
have to violate some rules there, but in case of miss subordination (like
Epic) then having that rule is a simple case in court.

------
monadic2
Man I just want to have control over my phone is that too much to ask?

~~~
bsaul
don't understand why you got downvoted because ultimately it's what it all
boils down to..

~~~
electriclove
You never had control with Apple. It didn't seem to matter to many for the
longest time.

------
smnscu
Quickly changing the App Store guidelines is a great way to appear innocent in
their ongoing legal feud with Epic.

~~~
ogre_codes
From what I can tell, nothing here affects their legal dispute with Epic. They
aren't opening up third party app stores which escape the 30% cut.

~~~
cma
Facebook joined in after Epic and talked about how it made their one on one
feature for tutoring/guitar lessons/etc. infeasible. This seems targeted at
allowing that, with the one to many restriction still asking for 30% of school
tuitions if they have a remote classroom app and offer payments through the
app, or refuse to offer in app purchases of tuition for a free app.

~~~
ogre_codes
Facebook's action wouldn't effect Epic and vice-versa. The two are unconnected
outside the fact that they relate to the App Store.

~~~
cma
It was connected in that they were together in time:

> Facebook’s complaints come a day after Epic Games Inc., the creator of
> Fortnite, sued Apple and Google after both companies removed Fortnite from
> their respective app stores over a payment dispute.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-
business/fa...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/on-small-
business/facebook-says-apple-in-app-fees-hurt-businesses-during-
covid/2020/08/14/2ce1cd80-de6f-11ea-b4f1-25b762cdbbf4_story.html)

Both were obviously also timed to go near the antitrust scrutiny.

------
Qahlel
If Apple was a Chinese company, US would have "liberated" App Store decades
ago.

------
ab_testing
Just as a data point, Wechat exists in the Chinese App store and has its own
payment system. So people and businesses can buy and sell using Wechat in
China on the iPhone while being in the Apple App store and avoiding the 30%
Apple cut.

------
branon
> For example, apps should not encourage placing the device under a mattress
> or pillow while charging

Is this rule referring to anything in particular? Was there an issue with a
pillow-warming app that I missed out on hearing about?

------
Andrew_nenakhov
> _3.1.3(b): Multiplatform Services: Apps that operate across multiple
> platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they
> have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including
> consumable items in multi-platform games, provided those items are also
> available as in-app purchases within the app._

This is worded so broadly, that it can perfectly be applied to browsers and
email clients. User plays a browser or PBEM game that has subscriptions? _Ka-
ching_

~~~
perlgeek
So could a game developer offer the items for 30% more with in-app purchases,
and provide a link to the browser where they can be purchased for regular
price?

------
elif
so, in theory epic could add an option for a $5 coaching session, where a
coach watches you play and coaches you over voice, and the student receives a
skin upon completion.

Can a yoga instructor add personalized text to each individual stream to have
5 simultaneous 1-1 sessions?

etc.

this is so rife for double standards, in practice it basically boils down to
"what we say goes"

------
santoshalper
"Offline experiences not involving as phone do not have to use in-app
purchases."

"Family interactions do not have to use in-app purchases."

"Your hopes and dreams do not have to use in-app purchases."

Thank you Apple. I for one, appreciate your generosity.

------
jonny383
Apple is really waiting to be toppled over. If only Microsoft could up their
hardware game and start producing good computers.

------
ranman
Apple should make a profit for providing the platform. That profit shouldn’t
be 30%... as a business operator I wouldn’t mind paying ~3%

~~~
buzzerbetrayed
I wouldn't mind paying $100 for an iPhone either. Unfortunately, you and I
don't get to set the prices on the products we buy. And if you don't find the
price reasonable, don't buy the product. Apple has no obligation to let you
reach all of its customers just because they are successful.

------
pier25
Is this new?

~~~
Nextgrid
Just got an e-mail now about an App Store guidelines update. There's more
juicy stuff in there besides this.

------
emdowling
The bigger story here is for game streaming apps (section 4.9). Previously
Xbox game streaming and Stadia had been rejected as they were a single app
that provided access to multiple apps.

tl;dr the new rules allow For games to be streamed, but each title must be a
separate app and run all in-game purchases through in-app purchase. They’ve
also explicitly allowed for game streaming services to have catalogue apps
that link to the individual App Store listings.

This is massive and strikes me as a great compromise solution. It separates
the technical implementation (streaming) from the actual value proposition to
users (the game itself). Essentially, each individual game needs be a separate
app in the store and be reviewed individually.

I think the xCloud team at Microsoft is about to pull a few late nights to get
this launched on iOS in the next few weeks.

~~~
nvrspyx
I disagree. This is an annoying compromise for something that doesn't need
compromising. My phone's home screen is cluttered enough as it is and now I'll
need separate apps for all the games in my Xbox library and those on Game
Pass? I'll also need to download a redundant amount of code for each game and
may not be able to play certain games due to Apple's arbitrary rulings? I'll
have to dig through hundreds of games on Microsoft's developer page just to
peruse through Microsoft's non-gaming apps to stumble upon something like
Family Safety or Math Solver?

This sounds like a huge pain in the butt for users and kind of loses some of
the value proposition of game streaming: trying games instantly, not needing
to download anything, and not taking up a bunch of space for your whole
library.

~~~
dindresto
On a further note, what is preventing Stadia from running on Safari on iPadOS
right now? I suppose it's making use of some non-standard Chrome only
features?

~~~
nvrspyx
I'm pretty sure it's using some Chromium-specific functionality, but I can't
say what exactly since it's not publicly stated as far as I can tell.

------
scarface74
There original stance was wrong on so many levels. With Covid, plenty of
people are having to go virtual. Before this change and before Covid, you
didn’t have to pay to book a personal trainer in person. Then when they went
virtual, Apple asked for a cut. This reverses their previous rule.

