We’ve been making white-label apps for fitness businesses for a few years now. Our white label app allows fitness businesses to deliver better personal training experience to their clients. Personal trainers and their clients can use the app to plan and track workouts, track progress, chat with each other etc.
Recently, Apple started rejecting our white-label app because allegedly we are breaking their "3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services" guideline. As per the guideline, if a business is selling digital content on other platforms that’s accessible inside the iOS app then those items should also be available as an in-app purchase on the iOS app too.
This was very surprising because we always thought personal training services to fall under the category of "goods and services" and not digital content. And as per guideline “3.1.5(a) Goods and Services Outside of the App” we aren’t even allowed to use in-app purchase selling services.
But Apple reviewers disagree that our app falls under the “services” category. According to reviewers, since clients are getting "digital value" from the app we therefore must add an in-app purchase to the app.
We are ready to add a free tier to the app. But that is a no-go solution. We must add in-app purchases of some kind to get the apps approved.
The "3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services" guideline does not make sense. You can use the same guideline to force any for-profit business that offers anything useful inside an iOS app to add an in-app purchase. How is this even allowed?
By the same reasoning apps built for physical therapists, doctors should add in-app purchases too?
And why is Uber not giving a 30% cut? Their customers do get digital-value inside the app.
This is a blatant attempt by Apple to extra their 30% rent on business that happens outside of their App Store. It's shocking that one of the wealthiest companies in the world acts this way towards small developers and companies.
This is corporate strategy running amok. Clearly the whole app review has been scaled up and is now using less than stellar resources quite possibly unfamiliar with the OS and basics of business beyond the training they received.
I think you're misunderstanding this rule. If I made a phone game where there was a "store" where I could buy physical stickers but each sticker pack came with a code for 10,000 in-game coins Apple would see that as just a way to get around paying 30% for something digital.
And if the only way to get in-game coins was by buying stickers off-app Apple would say you have to offer buying them in-app too as an IAP.
Yeah, when a rule has all these bizarre apparent loopholes and where the rule-setter needs to examine the implied intent of the action... it might be a bad rule.
I think any system of rules is going to look weird and organic when they have millions of people trying to rule lawyer the system.
Like the basic tenant of “we take a 30% cut of the sale of
all digital goods on our platform” is pretty straightforward, you only run into weird rules when you try find ways around it.
How are we trying to find way around it? We don't want to sell anything via IAP because it does not make sense in our app. But somehow we are forced to do it.
Look, I don't at all think you're trying to get away with something -- I think you're caught up in weird rule that was intended to plug the loophole of "selling a stick of gum that comes with a free bottle of water." From the reviewer's perspective they see that when personal trainers sell their services to clients they're also selling your/their white-label app. To Apple that's a sale of digital goods and they want their pound of flesh. The fact that it's bundled with an IRL service doesn't seem to matter to them.
You might be able to get away with skirting this rule if your white-label app is just a client to a fitness tracking service. Then it should fall under the same rules as Netflix and other "reader" apps.
fwiw, multiple big games I can think of do exactly what you described and are still on the iOS store. At least one of them brings in millions USD a month AND the out-of-app-only purchase flow is a huge money maker. Google lets them get away with it too, though, so it might just be a "big companies obey a different set of rules" situation.
Granblue Fantasy is in the iOS store and not only has bonuses for direct purchases (through their website) but sells lots of physical merch at a large mark-up with pack-in serial codes used for getting game content. There's a sizable chunk of their playerbase that goes out and buys everything - when they put something out it tops the Amazon.jp charts every time
I feel like someone at Apple either lost the script or made a mistake around getting in the middle of these services. Why try to force the WP app to add IAP or your app? It can't be for the money. Let's be real, unless Netflix or some other huge service provider comes back, Apple is ruining their reputation over literal couch change (last I checked 1/3 of services money came from Google paying to be the default browser...). So is there some other reason? Does Apple really think it offers a better consumer experience?
Don't underestimate the power of immoral mazes. With a corporation the size of Apple, the middlepeople are all very far removed from the specifics of what does and doesn't generate profit and instead are following their interpretation of directives and attempting to appease their superiors -- which may or may not be quantified in monthly revenue. I imagine in the case of app review, their performance metrics can't be expressed in revenue, so their must be using something else to grade themselves.
> That's right. Huge multinational corporations famously don't like money.
In some cases yes. The whole concept of 'Innovators Dilemma' is built on this fact. Squeezing an extra million here or there is a waste of Apple's time at their scale. It doesn't move the Apple revenue needle. Getting WP or some fitness app, even in aggregate to give 30% of a subset of customer subscription does nothing for Apple except hurt their brand. It probably actually costs them money from losing brand value.
Google OTOH pays Apple billions to be the default and/or first position on the search list. That's why we're unlikely to see an Apple search engine anytime soon.
You are right. It is like meeting guidelines have become more important than any thing else.
And in our case adding IAP will surely make for a poor user experience. How a fitness business can serve users that sign up for an in-app purchase from anywhere in the world. A personal trainer can't help everyone. They have a specific niche and specific type of people they can and want to serve.
So if I'm understanding this right, you sell "app as a service" to personal trainers who then direct their clients to download the app you made them and track workouts.
I think the "digital service" is the app itself because you only get access to the app if you're paying for a personal trainer. So I guess they want you to support buying the app directly not as part of a personal trainer package even though I'm guessing nobody would actually do that.
It definitely seems like you're running up against the rule meant to prevent "buy a coffee and get in-game coins free as as way to get around the 30% cut."
Yes, we build apps for gym and personal training businesses. Most of the value is delivered in-person or Skype (assessment, workout design, taking client through a workout etc). I feel like the guideline is not clear cut.
The personal training business has a high marginal cost and unlike games or other digital services, the value can be unlocked immediately after in-app purchase.
I feel the marginal cost of a product should determine what qualifies for this guideline. But for now we are in limbo.
It was part of a set of changes that were meant to go into effect in July but that Apple rolled back. You're allowed to charge a different price but you can't tell the user that they can get it cheaper elsewhere or that you're paying 30% to Apple.
You're right, but the discussion thread is about Apple requiring mandatory IAP (not just Apple Pay) before it will approve an app that sells fitness services, and then the discussion went into payment for telemedicine service - which presumably also require IAP and its 30% fee if Apple is consistent.
If it is for non digital goods, you can use Apple Pay (standard credit card rates) instead of IAP. Uber uses Apple Pay. Somehow TurboTax uses Apple Pay.
It is completely slimy that Apple forces apps that support personal trainers who take clients online 30% when if it was for a physical training session they wouldn’t have to because they were forced by Covid.
That's a good question. Personally I'd think no, as it's a real-world service (healthcare) that just happens to use a video call, but Apple's now-infamous hunger for services revenue growth may feel differently.
The Apple/Facebook dispute over the 30% for digital events (Apple demands 30%, Facebook thinks nobody - Facebook included - should be taking a cut) seems to make clear that Apple believes you owe them a cut no matter what as long as it's digital.
Facebook always gets their cut, just not from the consumer. They sell or use the usage data to undercut popular services which seems more toxic than 30% up front. If they were doing this without retaining data on the transaction I would be more charitable to their cause.
An app developer can implement copay feature on iOS using Apple pay without any issues right now.
But that is not the issue..
See I go to physical therapist for my shoulder pain and get home workout on my app. Apple is saying that you can't deliver home workout unless you add those home workouts are also available as an in-app purchase.
Shill: If it's in your market I highly suggest Kaiser! they have video telemedicine to actual doctors that's super useful for things like Flu, small maladies, follow ups. Plus I can email any of my doctors or anyone on my care team. Save a visit just send an email - even get a scripts for simple things.
This is literally the only reason I have a chromium browser installed on my personal machine. It's a great idea, but their implementation is quite bad.
We don't have any links inside the app that direct the users to the fitness business website. We even had a call with the app reviewer and this thing never came up. We would be happy to remove any links if they find. But I don't think that is the case.
They are consistent. Bigger publishers get away with much less bullshit than smaller ones.
Once you are big enough you get your own apple account manager which makes business a lot easier.
Recently, Apple started rejecting our white-label app because allegedly we are breaking their "3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services" guideline. As per the guideline, if a business is selling digital content on other platforms that’s accessible inside the iOS app then those items should also be available as an in-app purchase on the iOS app too.
This was very surprising because we always thought personal training services to fall under the category of "goods and services" and not digital content. And as per guideline “3.1.5(a) Goods and Services Outside of the App” we aren’t even allowed to use in-app purchase selling services.
But Apple reviewers disagree that our app falls under the “services” category. According to reviewers, since clients are getting "digital value" from the app we therefore must add an in-app purchase to the app.
We are ready to add a free tier to the app. But that is a no-go solution. We must add in-app purchases of some kind to get the apps approved.
The "3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services" guideline does not make sense. You can use the same guideline to force any for-profit business that offers anything useful inside an iOS app to add an in-app purchase. How is this even allowed?
By the same reasoning apps built for physical therapists, doctors should add in-app purchases too?
And why is Uber not giving a 30% cut? Their customers do get digital-value inside the app.
Not sure if this new change can actually help us.