Linking this here from the other thread, because the above comment cites the actual court documents, which clear up a lot of confusion I'm seeing on this thread. Apple's concession only applies to communications outside of the app using contact information obtained outside of the app. (Which, yes, was somehow disallowed before.)
If your user signed up through the app? Tough luck.
This "concession" only removes a rule that Apple know it never could have defended in court.
I wonder if this will lead to apps not allowing the initial sign-up inside the app, thus potentially reducing usage of AppleID? Although it wouldn't surprise me if Apple were to forbid apps that don't allow in-app sign-up.
A part from special cases (like bank apps), you have to always allow users to sign up in app. And if you allow to do that through identification providers other than email (eg. Google or FB), you have to provide Apple sign-in too.
Didn't Apple require that apps must allow for at least some functionality without external signup? I seem to recall that that was an issue for the "Hey" email client.
Not sure how they can defend any ban on telling users how to pay outside of the app. If Lina Khan tears Apple a new asshole they will be able to trace it back to the hubris displayed here.
I could be wrong but I interpreted the contact information mention this way.
AFAIK it intends to disallow transactional emails like signup (welcome to netflix) from pushing third-party IAP:
> Developers cannot use information obtained within the app to target individual users outside of the app ... (such as sending an individual user an email about other purchasing methods ...
But that generic sentence means you can have a bulk mailing list with messages that mention your own payment option:
> Developers can send communications outside of the app to their user base about purchasing methods other than in-app purchase.
This is the worst tech news headline I’ve ever seen. The change the article is referring to is allowing developers to refer to non-IAP payments in communication with users outside the app (the fact that this was disallowed before blows my mind). This does absolutely nothing to change the in-app anti-steering rules Apple has.
I think I should clarify what changed in the rules. Apple attempted to stop any mass communication to your users from mentioning another way to pay. If they signed up in the app Apple still wanted to lock them in as an IAP customer.
Now you can send bulk emails to consenting account holders and mention non-IAP payment methods without running afoul of the rules.
> 3.1.3 Other Purchase Methods: The following apps may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase. Apps in this section cannot, either within the app or through communications sent to points of contact obtained from account registration within the app (like email or text), encourage users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase.
That's been changed to:
> 3.1.3 Other Purchase Methods: The following apps may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase. Apps in this section cannot, within the app, encourage users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase. Developers cannot use information obtained within the app to target individual users outside of the app to use purchasing methods other than in-app purchase (such as sending an individual user an email about other purchasing methods after that individual signs up for an account within the app). Developers can send communications outside of the app to their user base about purchasing methods other than in-app purchase.
Then the AFAIK unchanged exceptions follow: "reader" (any content store), multiplatform services (yes the guidelines are made so strict allowing the use of previously purchased accounts had to be an exception, "provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app"), P2P, "goods and services outside the app", etc.
This is still a huge step even if not enough. It means that apps like spotify and netflix no longer have to have a screen saying "You can not continue via the app" and nothing more which is terrible UX.
"Head to spotify.com to set up a subscription" is much better UI.
They still can't link to third-party payments. The only change is that after users have opted-in to [X company]'s marketing email, the company is allowed to talk about their own payment system to their own mailing list. You know, after the customer has likely already set up an IAP subscription where Apple takes 30%.
But I don’t get it, it has never been forbidden, isn’t that exactly how netflix and all other subscription business do it? Clearly they have communicated about the payment outside the app?
Apps were rejected if they had a link that would open a page that would give you the information that you have an option to get a cheaper price if you pay outside Apple. You can find on other comments (maybe on the other thread) the exact rule from Apple.
Netflix and spotify dump you on a page which says "You can not continue via the app". They have not been allowed to tell you how you can continue to set up a payment, only that it can not be via the app. Now they can say go to this url to set it up.
They cannot send you to a URL and still can't mention non-IAP payments from the app. Only in a bulk email to users. Emailing your own users and providing them a way to pay for your cross-platform service was disallowed before.
Not really, apps that distribute content like that have are allowed to take payment outside the app, I’m pretty sure it applies to anyone. No doubt the exception was introduced because of Amazon and Netflix, but i think it applies to anyone.
Thanks Apple, for "letting" me accept payment outside the App Store. Thanks for not watching the streets and not intervening when somebody tries to pay me.
All jokes aside, the wording is wrong. Apple does not "let me". I do. And Apple indeed doesn't stop me.
In one sentence Apple not only 'backs down', but presents itself as the one who 'lets you'. Well, thanks Apple. :')
If I have a web app allowing people to register and pay a recurring fee. Can Apple require that people using the iOS version app pay the subscription through the web store and then pay the Apple tax ?
No, this has never been the case. For example, you can buy a subscription to the Downdog app through thir website where it's SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than via their iOS app. After this, you can continue using their iOS app as a fully paid subscriber just fine.
To be honest, I have no clue. When they have physical control, they can block whatever they want. When you enter an agreement with them, they can legally force things.
What they can not do - however - is act like they are the ones making the law, and saying stuff like they "let" you and me.
They are not gods and their only prophet was a Cluster B disordered hippy who is now dead.
There is already legislation in process that would do a hell of a lot more than this change including giving vendors the ability to sell entirely via their own store.
Because even in the best case scenario, you’d have to wait a half decade before getting that supposed 200%.
That’s assuming it passes at all. A bill must get actually passed by both houses of congress and signed into law by the president. Until then, it’s vaporware.
And then, once a bill is passed, someone has to enforce it, and that enforcement likely has to work its way through the court system.
This is really big news. Waiting to see some more details. Apparently nothing changes if you decide to take in-app payments but you will be able to take payments outside App Store and avoid the 30% cut Apple takes.
Not exactly. Developers were free to take outside payments for apps. Developers were forbidden from linking or talking about this from within the app. On their on website was OK. This change lets developers tell their customer about outside payments from within the app.
From what I gather, apps are still required to accept Apple Pay if they offer any type of in-app purchase.
And apps that do not work without an outside-app purchase are still rejected as well.
Based on the news release from Apple it looks like developers still aren't allowed to link to this from inside the app. It only allows for out of app communications (like email)?
This and another news they will allow more different pricing points, up to 500 from 100.
I wonder if some PR/research team at Apple woke up one day and finally realize the outcry re scan of iPhone in iOS 15 may actually hurt the brand longterm.
This is a step in the right direction, but it's not reform, nor is the kind of transparency that would have remedied issues like the Hey email scandal. In any case, it's an interesting departure from the "courageous" Apple that unabashedly removed the headphone jack and dismissed concern over on-device scanning as 'screeching'.
Actually, it is. Hey developers insisted on their right to tell customers where they can pay right from the app. And shortly they will have this right.
This is not the epic case, but now couldn’t epic direct users of fortnite to add credits to their account on epic’s website and bypass the apple tax, which is part of what epic wants out of their case?
Yes but its is poor UI with extra friction. It's not so bad if you have a recurring subscription but it will kill you if you are trying to get users to manually pay regularly. I wouldn't be surprised if the drop in sales would account for more than the 30% fee.
This is actually a bit of a genius plan from Apple because it does not actually help epic but makes it look like they have no reason to complain now.
Everything that is done with a platform dependent app can be done with a platform independent web app. I don't know what the best way out of this is but app stores were a step back. Your phone could have one app...a web browser and maybe a few utilities like a calculator, calendar, clock. Even these could be implemented as web apps running in the browser.
That’s more or less where browsers are (or are heading rapidly). It’s dumb and terrible and has all sorts of issues: but it’s also cheap and easy, and often that’s good enough.
So you can't have any platform differentiation and at the same time lose any cohesive, platform specific UI with known conventions.
Instead of two major mobile vendors we end up with one or best case scenario two major browsers from one or two tech companies with enough resources to to build and maintain them.
Or we could just have open standards like the web originally was and mostly still is. You can use the gmail web app from a wide range of browsers. Even Lynx in the console...It is not like you have to access a separate gmail web page for each browser you use. I don't get why people think web apps would need to lead to proprietary browser dependence. Not if they are coded for
open standards, like HTML, CSS, Javascript, etc.
Linking this here from the other thread, because the above comment cites the actual court documents, which clear up a lot of confusion I'm seeing on this thread. Apple's concession only applies to communications outside of the app using contact information obtained outside of the app. (Which, yes, was somehow disallowed before.)
If your user signed up through the app? Tough luck.
This "concession" only removes a rule that Apple know it never could have defended in court.