"Apple will also set up a $100 million fund for small developers in the U.S., ranging from a minimum of $250 to $30,000 based on the size of the developer. Eligible developers are those who made less than $1 million during each of five years, a group Apple says represents more than 99 percent of developers."
> Apple settled this lawsuit by giving up virtually nothing
Isn't Apple letting "developers...share purchase options with users outside of their iOS app" the whole point of the suit? That's opening up an end around to their 30% cut.
So you sign up for... a free trial(?) in the app, then you get hit with a "upgrade your subscription" email? It seems like an awkward flow, but maybe it will be good enough for developers.
Sad thing is: for subscriptions I actually prefer having Apple as a middleman.
Want to cancel a subscription? Cool, just do it through iPhone’s Settings. No questions asked. There. Done. No “call our customer line/chat to cancel your subscription”. Want to renew it? Same place. Prices are clear and no “small print” non-sense.
Or a button that bounces you to a web page. If I trust the developer, e.g. Spotify, that's enough. If I don't completely, it would be a pass, but that's a reasonable trade-off to offer users.
But literally nothing is changing here? They're still not allowing the app itself to use other payment options, or even mention that they exist. And Apple will still require exactly the same forms of content to go through IAP.
> Apple is also clarifying that developers can use communications, such as email, to share information about payment methods outside of their iOS app.
It's pretty clear that they're not allowing advertising alternative options in the app itself. You need to have some kind of a secondary communication channel with the user, which basically no app maker will be able to establish.
To further support this interpretation, note that the text is explicitly claiming that this is just a clarification of the policy, not a change in policy.
This is the same judge that is doing the Apple vs Epic ruling. I would expect the final ruling on Apple vs Epic to, ultimately, have very similar results to this settlement (or would have).
If you've been following Hoeg Law's hours long legal commentary on Apple vs Epic, they believed the most likely resolution would be Apple being forced to remove the "anti-steering rule" which gags developers from talking about alternative payment options. This settlement has that already. It looks like, unless there is a major upset, the Apple vs Epic ruling will be virtually moot (in terms of legal consequences that benefit developers) unless it gets appealed.
This settlement is not good enough for many developers, since developers are still subject to Apple's anti-steering rule in their iOS apps. Having to establish another communication channel with the customer is an unnecessary hurdle to let the customer know that they could avoid the (up to) 42.8% price hike on their subscription and future app-related purchases if they pay outside the app.
