Apple App Store guidelines remove ban on encouraging external payments in US

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

463 333 1 year ago

developer.apple.com

The App Review Guidelines have been updated for compliance with a United States court decision regarding buttons, external links, and other calls to action in apps. These changes affect apps distributed on the United States storefront of the App Store, and are as follows:

...

3.1.3: The prohibition on encouraging users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase does not apply on the United States storefront.
3.1.3(a): The External Link Account entitlement is not required for apps on the United States storefront to include buttons, external links, or other calls to action.

fundatus2• 1 year ago

Sigh, not that I expected anything else from Apple at this point but of course they only change the rules for the US.

ocdtrekkie4• 1 year ago

Presumably they are planning to appeal so want to minimize impacted apps when they hope to make everyone undo all the changes later. If it sticks it is hard not to imagine it becoming global, since the app store tax issue has become a topic of concern in like a dozen countries now.

fundatus2• 1 year ago

Yeah, I was hoping Apple would read the room and simply change the rules globally, but I guess they will be trying to squeeze us customers for as long as they can.

stingraycharles2• 1 year ago

This is exactly it. They’re acting as if it’s something that’s going to be reversed, and are going to appeal.

If they also apply the same rules to other countries, it would hurt their case that this court order is unjust.

klabb32• 1 year ago

Apple was doing malicious compliance all along. It’s not surprising. But this is extremely good news, because it dampens FUD and narratives such as ”the EU is only going after American companies with frivolous rules”. If you get punished this hard for anti-trust, in the US, you are so out of line it’s not even funny. So it adds legitimacy to the free market spirit seen in markets like EU, which has been criticized for making up arbitrary rules for self-interest.

In either case, this thing will die with a whimper, not a bang. Apple will have to concede to EU and it would not surprise me if other large markets will demand the same.

So the stage is changing. Apple could have flown under the radar and made concessions with terms they could dictate, letting them simplify their offerings across the world without attracting regulators and mega-lawsuits (and hear me out - maybe focus on products and innovation instead). Now, they fight against multiple jurisdictions at once, which all have different requirements (obviously, since they are different bodies). Even if they fold now, by reducing the tax and making more lenient rules, they’re too late. They already have regulators and judges dictating for them what to do, so their agency is permanently limited.

People forget that in the EU, the ”gatekeeper status” wasn’t just ”go after Apple and Google”. It was the App Store specifically. For instance, Gmail was evaluated but not included.

TLDR Apple has to sleep in a bed that they shat in themselves. They were universally popular and could get away with lots of questionable behavior, but instead angered everyone and are rightfully getting curfewed.

deeThrow947• 1 year ago

So it adds legitimacy to the free market spirit seen in markets like EU, which has been criticized for making up arbitrary rules for self-interest.

I'm confused a) who is taking the concept of free markets seriously, especially in this context where markets (and competition) are arbitrarily defined and owned by corporations and and b) who would view self-interested laws as either surprising or bad? Of course laws are in self interest. Why on else else would you pass a law?

jjice• 1 year ago

It seems pretty standard for tech companies. They did the same thing with EU only side-loading (not even sure if that's the right term for how restricted it is). They'll only make changes where they need to, whether it's the EU or the US, or even the UK (let's see how that encryption stuff turns out).

As a business, I understand why they would - more revenue. At least there's some progress and I wouldn't be surprised if the EU follows suit.

rendaw• 1 year ago

It makes comparison easier though. If they did it everywhere, they could make claims about how cheaper or better it'd be for everyone if they didn't have to do it, but having both systems in place at once means people can just look across the lake and see.

nottorp3• 1 year ago

EU only side-loading

There is no side loading on iOS, even for the EU.

Not by my definition of side loading.

burnte• 1 year ago

Yep, and the EU wants the same thing so all Apple is really doing is holding on for a little longer to the old rules until the EU will make them do the exact same thing. Apple could have been less maliciously compliant and wouldn't have as much resistance from courts, but it was clearly a retaliatory tactic from minute 1.

behnamoh2• 1 year ago

One word: greed.

Apple as the company we used to know is long dead. I still buy MacBooks and iPhones but only because some remnant of the past still exists in them. The new company came up with Vision Pro, screwing Spotify over app commissions, screwing game developers users love (Epic), non-upgradeable devices, extremely difficult repairability, etc.

throwaway2903• 1 year ago

screwing Spotify over app commissions

Spotify is the one who screws everyone. They deserve it

Epic

Epic is another example of a shady company who doesn't want to give a cut from its micro transactions from users (users who are brought to them by Apple's innovation)

difficult repairability

iPhone repairability score is 2-3 points higher than Pixel's according to iFixit. Only HMD beats iPhone.

matwood2• 1 year ago

One word: greed.

This is too easy of an answer. Would you take more money if I offered it to you?

My problem with Apple here is that I believe it's short sighted. Lack of compliance or whatever you want to call it, could threaten the whole business by forcing legislation and legal action.

whywhywhywhy2• 1 year ago

Two words: Sales & Marketing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4VBqTViEx4

plufz• 1 year ago

Steve Jobs was quite famously against upgradability since the start. That is not something new for Apple.

Honestly I love the current macs, but of course I would like to be able to upgrade them as well. But yeah I also have the feeling that Apple is getting less innovative, more sloppy and more greedy, but I'm not sure I think its become a whole other company.

kelseyfrog• 1 year ago

Whose greed? The executives who are incentivized to make these decisions or the shareholders who put them in place and kick them out if they don't?

saurik4• 1 year ago

...except for apps on the United States storefront, the apps may not...

This, honestly, doesn't seem to be in line with the injunction if it still applies to apps published by developers from the United States?

onlyrealcuzzo• 1 year ago

Why would you expect Apple to ever "do the right thing?"

They exist to seek profits.

If this was a losing strategy for them, they would've dropped it long ago without the ruling.

Other countries should implement similar laws, not hope that Apple does the right thing.

Hope is a bad strategy.

fmbb• 1 year ago

Are the requirements still there for e.g. the EU storefront?

maxehmookau2• 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure EU apps can link elsewhere for payment, but they have to show a warning message first saying that the payment is outside of Apple's jurisdiction and you can't get a refund from apple, etc.

nozzlegear• 1 year ago

Am I crazy or was this not already possible in the US? When I tried to sign up for Disney Plus to watch the new season of Andor, Disney told me I had to complete the signup outside of the app. Then I got a big warning from Apple saying I was no longer transacting with Apple and wouldn't be able to cancel the subscription or get refunds via the App Store if I continued. Am I misunderstanding what this trial was about?

https://imgur.com/a/zmDEx7v

mvac• 1 year ago

This exemption is only there for "reader apps"

" 3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video). ... Reader app developers may apply for the External Link Account Entitlement to provide an informational link in their app to a web site ...

dartharva2• 1 year ago

In the same article:

    3.1.1 In-App Purchase:
    If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, cryptocurrencies and cryptocurrency wallets, etc.

Oof, I don't envy app developers who have to tolerate this bullshit

JustExAWS6• 1 year ago

You’ll have to excuse me for not mourning for game developers having to pay 30% for purchases of loot boxes and other pay to win mechanics.

It came out in the original Epic trial that this is where 90% of in app revenue comes from.

dartharva2• 1 year ago

What about the freemium model that is standard in the industry? Not everything is games.

eptcyka• 1 year ago

It is everyone, not just loot boxes. Apple could put an end to lootboxes if they wanted to.

fkyoureadthedoc6• 1 year ago

Why not? I'd personally never go somewhere else to pay for your subscription or content. Maybe if you were a big time player that didn't have an appealing alternative, like Netflix. But for the average app, like Planta or Breethe, I'm just switching to an app that has an in app purchase if yours doesn't.

Semi-related, but I also always pick an app that has family sharing of subscription over one that doesn't too (Headspace --> Breethe)

protimewaster3• 1 year ago

The wording here seems, to me, to have some silly limitations. For example, there are apps I have thought would make a nice gift for a friend before, and the easiest way to do this is to buy an unlock key and send it to them.

But, with these rules, I guess the goal is that I have to send them a gift card instead? I'll just not bother and get them something else.

Nathanba• 1 year ago

That makes no sense, using Paypal or Stripe is very normal on the web. There is no reason why it should be any different in apps except for Apple trying to gaslight us.

arghwhat5• 1 year ago

I'd personally never go somewhere else to pay for your subscription or content.

When "going elsewhere" means "getting stuff cheaper", people are likely going to go elsewhere to pay for any subscription even if setup is notably less convenient.

Aaargh203184• 1 year ago

Oof, I don't envy app developers who have to tolerate this bullshit

You're confusing developers with publishers. Developers love this shit, one simple API that's built in to the OS and you can support payments worldwide instead of having to integrate with dozens of payment providers all with their own quirky APIs.

Now for publishers, who want to maximise their profit margins and who don't have to actually write the code to do all those integrations, that's a different story. But I don't think there is a single developer in the world who enjoys integrating with 3rd party payment services.

haukilup• 1 year ago

Hard disagree. Developers are often forced to integrate with both IAP and backend workarounds, which creates more effort and edge cases.

Maybe you meant to specify a specific subset of iOS-only developers?

troupo3• 1 year ago

Now for publishers,

As if there are no developers who are also publishers.

InsideOutSanta• 1 year ago

Developers love this shit

Somebody needs to alert the developers, because they're currently unaware of how much they love it. I've only ever seen devs complain about this stuff.

Of course, this is a self-selected group because people who are happy with the status quo don't usually talk about it loudly online. Still, many developers, including iOS-only indies, are unhappy with the App Store's payment constraints. Check out mjtsai's blog for regular roundups of their complaints.

candiddevmike2• 1 year ago

Apple's API is atrocious to work with, especially integrating it with a server to handle payment success/failure. It's annoyingly naive and kind of the API equivalent of "you're holding it wrong".

pjc505• 1 year ago

Developers love paying 30% to a single middleman?

mschuster912• 1 year ago

I get where Apple is coming from, though, and it's not just the revenue stream. They want to make sure that if you spent money on something in the Apple ecosystem, you can enjoy that for as long as you got a working device with that app installed. Allowing third-party services like license keys introduce a dependency on the vendor to keep their servers up and running.

pjc505• 1 year ago

.. well, apart from Apple's own ability to vaporize apps from the store at no notice, and their own upgrade treadmill which tends to cause low-revenue apps to be dropped. No, it's just because someone other than Apple is earning money, and this will probably also end up being overturned.

bugfix• 1 year ago

Apple wants to make sure they get a 30% cut if you spend money on anything within their ecosystem — that's all they really care about.

There are several reports of people having their entire accounts banned, effectively losing access to everything they paid for. And it's basically impossible to get your account back.

pjc505• 1 year ago

.. wait, so what exactly is allowed for "steering" to your own website, if not subscriptions or content?

revskill3• 1 year ago

Apple store needs to die. We have the web.

hnlmorg5• 1 year ago

Ironically the App Store only exists because of the ridicule Apple received when they announced their new smartphone which then only supported 3rd party applications as web apps. Back then, native apps were considered a “must have” feature for smartphones.

How times have changed.

alt2274• 1 year ago

The App store and native apps are not one and the same. OP didnt say that native apps need to die, only the app store.

Android ecosystem deals just fine with native apps being distributed in .apk format which can just easily be installed by the user clicking on the file. Why cant this happen on Apple devices too?

nijave• 1 year ago

Mobile internet has underwent massive improvements since then. In the U.S. at least, there are places 5G outperforms wired connections.

Same goes for mobile compute power (which translates to browser performance)

Aaargh203184• 1 year ago

How times have changed.

They really haven't.

'Web apps' are terrible, both from an end-user and developer perspective. They are a bloated, overcomplicated mess.

jillesvangurp• 1 year ago

The itunes store predates the iphone. The lack of native apps was resolved within a year of the iphone launch with the second generation. Probably they weren't ready for native developers and freezing APIs.

And in fairness, Safari was pretty capable on iphone. I remember regularly using the iphone optimized version of Google Reader on Symbian, which of course had its own webkit based browser. Worked pretty well in 2008. I was working in Nokia Research then. Lots of people experimenting with browser based UIs there at there. Also the S60 webkit port came out of one of the teams there around 2005 or so. Nokia had a full blown browser running on smart phones years before the iphone launched. Incredible how they dropped the ball. I'm pretty sure that influenced the thinking in Apple when they were designing the iphone. Because Webkit of course was their project.

pjc505• 1 year ago

Hmm. I'm not sure about this aspect of history. iPhone app store launch was July 2008, Play Store launch was October 2008. Symbian store was actually after this (yes, really) https://venturebeat.com/business/mobile-os-company-symbian-e...

Which app stores pre-dated iOS?

Now, Symbian and various others had apps, but you had to buy them through the carrier. And carriers were even worse gatekeepers than Apple!

JanSt2• 1 year ago

Only in the US feels like shooting themselves in the foot again. The EU is already cracking down on them for their malicious compliance with the DMA, and it’s only a matter of time before similar pressure builds

arghwhat5• 1 year ago

The problem is that "shooting themselves in the foot" also translates to "earning more money for a longer time".

nicce• 1 year ago

We need some courage to give larger fines. It is too common to calculate fines just as financial risk rather than something which you should not do because it is not a good thing. It is obvious that they are making more money than the possible fines are when they still continue doing this. Or just put persons responsible for company's ill decisions and suddenly all problems disappear.

JanSt2• 1 year ago

Probably true. The EU needs to enact daily fines for non-compliance, going back to the day the legislation came into power.

netdevphoenix• 1 year ago

I don't get it. Why is Apple changing this in the US now? Is it because the allegation of them lying under oath and being subjected to a criminal review? If so, how does this change absolves them or minimises their fate during the upcoming criminal trial against them?

ocdtrekkie4• 1 year ago

The injunction prohibits them from restricting outside purchases in any way.

stetrain2• 1 year ago

This is related to the previous Apple v Epic civil case. The judge recently determined that Apple had not complied with the previous ruling.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...

foolswisdom3• 1 year ago

You're confusing two different things. 1 the court determined that apple subverted the original injunction, and ordered that it comply immediately (specifically calling out all the ways apple was getting around the injunction previously). 2 the court said that to issue a fine so that apple loses whatever money it gained by non-compliance would be considered a criminal matter (unless it becomes clear that there's no other way to force apple to comply with 1 above) even though it may be appropriate, and as such it is beyond the scope of what the court could order in its own, and the court refers the matter for criminal prosecution.

So this change is just apple complying with 1.

pc863• 1 year ago

"Upcoming criminal trial" implies that there is an upcoming criminal trial, which at this point there is not. The judge referred a criminal complaint for contempt against that witness. The office that received it (presumably some sort of investigative division of the court or law enforcement entity) has to investigate, decide if they want to refer it to a prosecutor, and the prosecutor then has to decide if they want to actually file charges. Then there's a probable cause hearing where a judge determines if there is enough evidence for a trial. Then they set a trial date.

Until a trial date is set there is no upcoming criminal trial.

pc863• 1 year ago

Ran out of edit time but this is feature, not a bug, and it's not really something ideological like a lot of this kind of stuff can be.

You don't want courts to be able to decide on Monday that you're going to trial on Tuesday. You don't want courts (or any other entity of the judiciary or law enforcement) to decide that you're going to trial independently and the next step is your trial. Regardless of your political persuasion most people agree that fast and efficient prosecution by the state is a Bad Thing. Slow is good. Lots of hands and eyes involved in the process is good. Justice moves slowly by design.

Larrikin• 1 year ago

Hopefully the criminal charge referrals don't disappear.

kevin_thibedeau• 1 year ago

Tim Apple just needs to make a bigger bribe. Jeff Bozo scooped the documentaries so now he's gotta find something bigger to launder the payoff with.

deeThrow947• 1 year ago

A win is a win

aligundogdu• 1 year ago

Do these rules only apply to the United States?

andiareso3• 1 year ago

Yes

nailer• 1 year ago

Why does it have to be a link to a website? Why can’t the app just let me pay, potentially not using Apple Pay?

HDThoreaun4• 1 year ago

because thats what the judge said. She ruled that rules banning in app purchases that dont use apple pay is allowed but the anti steering stuff is not.

coldcode• 1 year ago

At the risk of not piling on to the Apple dislike here, if you use a non-Apple payment system, and you have an issue, you now need to go to the specific company and payment system, you can no longer demand your money back by dealing with a single company. I presume even more scam apps will take your money and ignore your complaints; imagine trying to sue a company in some foreign country to try to get your money back if they stole it. When Apple controlled the payment system, Apple could be sued in your home country. Of course this happens on the web too, but apps on your phone very different from web apps.

mlrtime• 1 year ago

Not 100% true, if it's digital you always have your Credit Card company. This is many times easier dealing with Apple or anyone else.

crazygringo4• 1 year ago

Canceling a purchase via Apple is generally much easier than dealing with your credit card. I don't know what experience you've had that has been the opposite?

bryant• 1 year ago

In fact, with apple providing this service, it's objectively worse — if apple declines to refund you and you charge back via card, apple (and Google etc) will just ban your account.

Removing apple and google from the payment chain mitigates this risk.

macguillicuddy3• 1 year ago

Is this not what the credit card system (with chargebacks and liability shift) is supposed to counter more generally? Lots of these arguments could equally be applied to a shopping mall but we don't require all stores within a mall to use the same merchant services provider.

andiareso3• 1 year ago

This is probably the best analogy, however I think what might be different is there is somewhat high of a bar for the merchant/vendor to be operating a legal and legitimate business. On the internet and in the App Store, it’s kind of a Wild West.

Edit: Maybe not globalizing App Store apps would resolve this? Or at least if you want to operate an app in a country, you need to incorporate in that country too? I think that might make it harder for overseas companies to get away with fraud.

gruez2• 1 year ago

Is this not what the credit card system (with chargebacks and liability shift) is supposed to counter more generally?

The credit card system is far less generous than App Store's policies. Apple offers no-questions asked refunds. Credit cards don't.

lapcat• 1 year ago

When Apple controlled the payment system, Apple could be sued in your home country.

Have any App Store consumers sued Apple? And were they successful?

Apple does refuse App Store refunds all the time. Apple also closes consumer Apple accounts all the time, for some reason or no reason, often refusing to tell the consumer the reason, alleging some kind of fraud, in which case the consumer loses everything they've ever purchased. One of the reasons, though, is consumers doing a chargeback on their credit card, which Apple hates and punishes severely.

laborcontract• 1 year ago

fwiw apple has been extremely generous to be on refunds and, while I don't abuse the system, I do get a refund when I think it's deemed necessary, either due to a lack of satisfaction or accidental purchase.

Chargebacks are a huge pain in the butt to deal with and, as someone who's saw this first hand, chargebackery is correlated bad customership (two words that I just made up) to so I can understand that they'd hate consumers doing that instead of going through what's otherwise a pretty fair system.

Dealing with apple support in payments land has been, on the consumer side, one of the less infuriating things that have come out of what is now their support process. That said, the ux for getting refunds and checking on their status is antiquated, perhaps purposefully.

jajko• 1 year ago

Do they do such a-holish immoral moves also in EU? There could be a billion or 5 fine for them in the waiting, we don't like to get fucked over by greedy corporations, no sir.

We need all the money we can get for killing some russians once they invade our borders in near future, so any contribution is highly appreciated.

MaKey• 1 year ago

This hasn't happened to the Android ecosystem, so why should it happen to the Apple ecosystem now?

UncleMeat• 1 year ago

You are free to only use apps that use apple payments if you are concerned about this.

crazygringo4• 1 year ago

But then there are apps you were able to use previously that you will no longer be able to trust. That's the problem -- it's taking away trust.

You're not free to continue using Apple's payment system as a consumer.

jimbokun• 1 year ago

Yes but will it be clear to users when they are using one vs the other?

Presumably Apple could have had more control over communicating this if they opened up external payment options voluntarily.

nemomarx• 1 year ago

That's a fair benefit to apple payment, and if the app vendor could offer apple pay (with the extra fee for this benefit) and their own payment system at a different price I think that would be ideal for consumers, yes?

2OEH8eoCRo0• 1 year ago

Well shit dealing with multiple companies sounds like a drag! We should merge all US companies into one entity!

caseyy4• 1 year ago

if you use a non-Apple payment system, and you have an issue, you now need to go to the specific company and payment system, you can no longer demand your money back by dealing with a single company

Just use a virtual payment processor (PayPal, Amazon Pay, Google Pay, etc) or any credit card directlyh. I mean, you often can't on an iPhone, and that's the whole problem.

If you have a genuine issue with what you bought via Apple's payment gateway and your bank files a credit card chargeback for you, Apple would even indiscriminately ban you. They are hardly the good guy.

They've installed themselves as an arbiter of what can be refunded and what cannot. But by law, the arbiter is the government, not Apple. So there are many, many problems with Apple's approach. The consumer rights are one, but acting above the law itself is a problem.

talkingtab• 1 year ago

People are still able to use Apple payments. They just have other choices now. At least that is my understanding. Wanting choices does not seem like "Apple dislike". To me, at least.

jasonlotito• 1 year ago

you now need to go to the specific company and payment system,

My credit card company. In fact, this is better because as a consumer, if I get scammed, I only need to deal with my CC company, and when I get my money back, I don't have to worry about Apple closing my account in retaliation.

When Apple controlled the payment system,

I was beholden to Apple's whims and limitations. If I didn't like Apple's outcome, going to my credit card company was still an option. However, initiating a charge back could result in something happening to my account.

imagine trying to sue a company in some foreign country to try to get your money back if they stole it

One phone call with my CC company (I don't even know if you still need to do the phone call anymore).

Oh, but... to be fair, I can't go to Apple's subscription page and cancel it there. So, there is that one thing.

post_break3• 1 year ago

If I charge back some random store because I didn't get what I ordered no problem. If I charge back Apple they can effectively shut my phone down and not allow me to install another App.

bilalq• 1 year ago

On the other hand, Apple does not let you as the developer do refunds on your own. You can't do full or partial refunds.

j45• 1 year ago

This is how everything pretty much works outside of the app store ecosystem.

It's possible to file a complaint with your credit card company and if need be do a chargeback.

BobaFloutist2• 1 year ago

That's literally the biggest selling point of credit cards too, you don't need to argue with every business you paid, just charge back your credit card. Apple didn't remotely invent "single point of dispute."

cyral• 1 year ago

This is sorta what customers expect. When they want a refund or have a problem, they ask the developer. They don't understand the payments are all going through apple AND that apple is responsible for all billing support. There is no way to even look up a customer or get a list of your customers with IAP, aside from using something like RevenueCat that tries to link your user accounts with the device receipts to figure out who is subscribed. Customers find it ridiculous that you can't help them with any billing questions at all.

zackify2• 1 year ago

Crazy. I thought hackernews didn’t care because this happened yesterday and I never saw anything!

We’re updating our app in a couple days this will save a LOT of money.

We will kick users out to web and pass a JWT in the url with a short lifespan to log the user in on web and then prompt for Apple Pay or credit card. Then a link back to our app’s deep link

candiddevmike2• 1 year ago

So many questions:

- Why not just handle all of this in the app? Do you think Apple won't allow it?

- Are you geofencing this functionality? It seems like per other comments this is US only.

- How are you handling existing subscribers (not sure if applicable)? Will you "encourage" them to migrate?

politician• 1 year ago

It'll be a nightmare to get an in-app change like this through their approval process. OP's solution to offload the entire thing to the web is a great stop-gap measure since when it is definitely rejected they can appeal through their App Store rep pointing to this external payment URL decision and have some small chance of getting it approved in the nearest term.

junto• 1 year ago

Because customers can’t trust payments in the app. Unless I’m being bounced out to somewhere I can see the URL and an SSL certificate I’m not paying.

What you’re suggesting is a dangerous anti-pattern.

zackify2• 1 year ago

It seems right now the rules are more clear about if you mention or link out, it’s ok. So that’s why.

We should geofence it to US yeah.

We are thinking of sending a push notification with a discount to pay on web and cancel

HDThoreaun4• 1 year ago

If you pay for something in the app apple gets 30% of that money. If you send users to your website to pay you get to keep it all now that the 27% fee was found illegal.

ncr1002• 1 year ago

Would be interested to hear the magnitude estimate of savings.

BobaFloutist2• 1 year ago

Presumably somewhere between 30% and 0%. Let's call it...20%?

bigyabai4• 1 year ago

I thought hackernews didn’t care because this happened yesterday and I never saw anything!

This is a bit of an "egg-on-face" moment for the community that has relentlessly defended Apple's righteousness.

buyucu• 1 year ago

Apple wrote the textbook on malicious compliance.

perihelions• 1 year ago

Related threads,

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43852145 ("Apple violated antitrust ruling, judge finds (wsj.com)" — 585 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43856795 ("Judge rules Apple executive lied under oath, makes criminal contempt referral (thebignewsletter.com)" — 340 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43859814 ("A senior Apple exec could be jailed in Epic case (9to5mac.com)" — 94 comments)

dereg• 1 year ago

My main takeaway from this is that Luca Maestri was a blight on Apple. He steered this company into the most malicious of compliance schemes that only has increased their regulatory attack surface. On top of that, he's the one who discouraged apple from making huge investments in compute for LLMs that threatens to derail Apple and the iPhone's primacy as the gateway to information.

intothemild• 1 year ago

Yes, don't forget Tim Cook, who from what I've seen, is the biggest proponent of milking every dollar out of absolutely everything, regardless of if it's good for the consumer or not*. So Maestri and Cook were a perfect combination, Maestri got to be tough, and Cook got someone to blame.

*Take USB-C, Apple made tonnes of money from MFA, which was the main reason they didn't ever want to pivot to a different connector. Even if it was the better choice.

pk97• 1 year ago

This should be applicable across the world, not just US.

MiddleEndian• 1 year ago

They should work with Google and implement a ban on apps that constantly forget your login information.

post_break3• 1 year ago

This is what bad management at Apple looks like. They were now forced to cut off the spice flow that is millions of dollars of IAPs from games in their coveted services pie chart because they got cocky. Roblox alone is going to show up on their balance chart. Epic throwing water on an oil fire with their comments make me grin, they are the reason Apple lowered AppStore pricing, and now they are the reason Apple can no longer collect rent from Patreon (which collects rent themselves). Epic won due to Apple's on hubris.

InTheArena• 1 year ago

Congrats. Two of the most user-hostile companies, one of which profits by exploiting children, are going to be better off. And let's also be clear, neither of these companies wants this revenue stream to go away; they just want a judge to give that revenue stream to them.

Get rid of Roblox's and Epic's anti-consumer behavior, and then I will "grin" at this.

post_break3• 1 year ago

You should grin any time you see someone make a "god" bleed.

redserk• 1 year ago

It's still a step forward at least for everyone who doesn't use a product from Epic or Roblox.

There is simply no 100.00% perfect solution here that'll make 100.00% people happy.

ocdtrekkie4• 1 year ago

It's really important to realize Epic could've gotten off with special treatment years ago. Fortnite is large enough to dictate terms, and both Apple and Google have made offers before. Tim Sweeney may someday become the villain, but anyone who doesn't realize he gambled a huge amount of his company's future on demanding change for everyone.

Every single individual app developer should be singing his praises today, because he could've just gotten the deal for his company, and many other companies have gone that route. Epic decided to demand better.

bogwog• 1 year ago

So Apple getting a cut of Roblox's revenue is protecting children from exploitation?

I think the real situation is that Apple allowing Roblox on their store despite its safety problems shows that Apple wants to profit from that exploitation themselves instead of prevent it. They have the power to kick them off, but they don't. (Although now they might)

celsoazevedo• 1 year ago

No one here (Apple, Roblox, Epic) is protecting children and Roblox/Epic business practices doesn't make Apple's "tax" more acceptable.

amluto• 1 year ago

Maybe? Apple collected a lot of money in the last year doing this.

I wonder if someone will try to force them to refund it all.

orasis• 1 year ago

There have already been class action lawsuits against both Apple and Google that have paid out to developers so who knows.

9999000009992• 1 year ago

Most customers are probably going to assume your a con artist if you don't use the official IAP.

When I use mobile apps I like being able to do all my spending in one place. I want to be able to go to subscriptions and cancel everything I don't need at once.

Just yesterday I had to manually stop a PayPal payment renewal since the merchants cancellation process doesn't work ( 2 emails to customer service and I get the vibe this is intentional).

That's not something I want to have to keep doing.

I can imagine Epic being able to convince people to use a 3rd party payment provider, but that won't happen for smaller studios.

m-s-y2• 1 year ago

Most customers are probably going to assume your a con artist if you don't use the official IAP.

and this is apple’s reasoning for why their strict control over the app store is warranted. they want it to be seen as trusted and infallible and that can’t happen if 3rd parties have free reign.

for me, the correct way forward isn’t external referrals. it’s allowing multiple app stores on devices. if you don't want the “untrusted” 3rd party store with more lax dev rules than Apple’s, just don’t use them.

9999000009992• 1 year ago

for me, the correct way forward isn’t external referrals. it’s allowing multiple app stores on devices. if you don't want the “untrusted” 3rd party store with more lax dev rules than Apple’s, just don’t use them.

Exactly. Or better yet just let me install whatever binaries I want. Make it clear I'm responsible for what I install though.

From the perspective of the average consumer, it's much easier for Apple to handle the whole flow. If I want to cancel my subscription via the app store it take 30 seconds, not a bunch of unanswered emails to customer support.

EcommerceFlow• 1 year ago

If you haven't watched Tim Sweeney's appearance on Lex Fridman (which went live two days ago ironically), he discusses this battle against Apple, which he's maintained at a furious pace for years. He goes into detail on how the previous guidelines stifle innovation, how app developers are basically forced to implement anti-consumer practices to maintain the ridiculous costs of achieving success on the app store, etc.

His Crusade for open platforms/services in general is very very respectable.

Fortnite, in my opinion, has been a gold standard for F2P monetization. No gambling, no randomized loot boxes, etc. Compare that with Counter Strike 2, and I can't imagine how much money Epic has left on the table by choosing this path. So I give Tim a lot of credit for maintaining such a principled stance.

pjmlp2• 1 year ago

I haven't seen any crusade of him against console vendors though.

stavros• 1 year ago

Don't let "better" be the enemy of "good".

gjsman-10004• 1 year ago

Before anyone tries to defend this, remember that consoles are not necessarily sold at a loss. Nintendo ensures their consoles are profitable on day one, even if others might be okay with year five.

In which case, yes, they are just iPhones in a big box with HDMI ports plugged into your TV. The only reason you can't do productivity tasks, is because of the restrictions, so the legally-nonexistent claim of "general purpose computing" doesn't do anything here.

bsimpson2• 1 year ago

Tim's a selfish businessman, whose interests just happen to align with the public interest in this instance.

He makes excuses about Linux market share when asked why Fortnite isn't on the Steam Deck, then ships a build for Windows ARM.

Fortnite Festival, their Rock Band recreation in the Fortnite ecosystem, recently started limiting when you can purchase songs in an effort to get people to impulse buy them when available. Players call it FOMO mode.

Epic is still pretty scummy and dishonest, even if in this insurance it appears to be on the good side.

hbn• 1 year ago

He tweeted one time that Apple's Find My network is "super creepy surveillance tech and shouldn't exist" because years prior someone stole his Mac and then he was able to see the location of the home where the thief lived.

He seems like an idiot to me.

Hikikomori3• 1 year ago

As far as being an American company they're pretty low on scummy behaviour.

dlubarov• 1 year ago

He makes excuses about Linux market share when asked why Fortnite isn't on the Steam Deck, then ships a build for Windows ARM.

What's the implication here, that he has some personal vendetta against Linux? A sibling comment seems to imply this as well.

It seems like Hanlon's Razor would suggest there was just some engineering complication that they never dealt with. I can imagine a bunch of explanations for why Windows ARM might have happened first. Maybe there were fewer complications, maybe some competent engineer personally cared about Windows ARM, maybe they have Windows based testing infrastructure, etc.

jader201• 1 year ago

No gambling, no randomized loot boxes, etc.
So I give Tim a lot of credit for maintaining such a principled stance.

IMO, someone that drives and capitalizes on addictive spending by an underage audience should never be considered principled. While it may not be considered gambling, it’s not much better when it’s often out of control due to feeding on FOMO.

tracerbulletx3• 1 year ago

Ah yes, toy makers, the true problem of our world. 30 years ago I'm sure you'd be complaining about "addicted" spending on keeping up with the most popular Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle toys. It's not evil to make things kids want and make money off it. If you don't want your kids to buy things, that's on you and its a problem from time immemorial, not a new issue with video games.

Thaxll• 1 year ago

Roblox entered the chat.

bigyabai4• 1 year ago

Apple is currently profiting quite handsomely off gambling games marketed to children. They deliberately limit the App Store to encourage games like Clash of Clans and shitty Farmville clones because letting you emulate Yoshi's Cookie wouldn't make them money.

They're both unprincipled. Sweeney just happens to be correct.

1vuio0pswjnm7• 1 year ago

What about a company that controls exclusive access to this "addictive spending by an underage audience" on the computers they sell, _after purchase_, for a 24% cut of the spoils.

gruez2• 1 year ago

He goes into detail on how [...] how app developers are basically forced to implement anti-consumer practices to maintain the ridiculous costs of achieving success on the app store, etc.

This sounds absurd. What was his argument for this?

ohgr2• 1 year ago

Fortnite - sit in lobby for 80% of the time and buy shit?

Tim just wants all of his cut.

And wants Apple to pay his app distribution costs...

There's no good guys anywhere in this.

cloudfudge2• 1 year ago

"App distribution costs" is laughable as an incentive. Any business that makes an app where you can and will spend dollars would gladly let you download it directly from their website in exchange for not giving up 30% of the in-app payments. App distribution costs nothing.

Hikikomori3• 1 year ago

Apple extra premium downloads, nobody else can do it.

philipwhiuk• 1 year ago

Fortnite, in my opinion, has been a gold standard for F2P monetization. No gambling, no randomized loot boxes, etc.

Hard disagree. The tour-de-force on Fortnite's insane process

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPHPNgIihR0

solardev• 1 year ago

Fortnite started as a P2W coop game where legendary weapons were all inside loot boxes. It was very predatory. Then an internal team at Epic made an experimental battle royale mode and that's what became modern Fortnite. The old one is still available as Fortnite: Save the World.

Epic is largely owned by Tencent anyway, who makes a lot of their money from gambling games.

nolok• 1 year ago

Not really it started as a game for sale, in active dev trying various stuff alongside paragon and unreal 4

They ultimately refunded everyone who bought the original or the two other games

nottorp3• 1 year ago

It's sad that the entities that forced Apple to be more open are free to play peddlers...

has been a gold standard for F2P monetization

Every F2P game is the same. They waste your time until you buy IAPs out of boredom. What gold standard?

archerx2• 1 year ago

Not true, you can enjoy rocket league fully without buying anything.

adamwk• 1 year ago

Tim Sweeney has his own app store that does the same thing as Apple.

duped2• 1 year ago

The only reason he is fighting Apple's monopoly on IAP is because he wants to ship the Epic store on mobile devices so he can make his 12% cut off exclusive titles.

Now is that better than the Apple store? Sure! But the real problem is that users can't install their own games without going through an arbiter like Epic or Apple.

mensetmanusman• 1 year ago

Or windows, or Samsung, or tsmc, or silicon miners… it’s wrappers all the way down!

mvdtnz2• 1 year ago

You mean because he wants to compete in a market?

HDThoreaun4• 1 year ago

If the epic store is allowed to exist apple would be forced to allow any App Store onto their platform.

Xelbair• 1 year ago

No gambling, no randomized loot boxes, etc.

instead you get peak FOMO, where you never know where item will return. It might be in a week, it might be in few years. you never know.

pen2l• 1 year ago

I can appreciate this argument comes from folks who frequent this forum, who can discern scams from legitimate things.

But I'm sad for this decision for myself and for the lay man and woman out there. In recent years I've gone out of my way to sign up for subscriptions with App Store if I have the option, because of the true boon it offered in a world of dark patterns: managing a subscription in one place where I have scope of everything, with the expectation that I won't have to jump through barriers or puzzles to cancel, clear-as-day information of when a subscription renews, how much it costs, etc. This was what Apple was good at. I hate that my friends and family will now probably unwittingly get had as a result of this.

weberer• 1 year ago

His Crusade for open platforms/services in general is very very respectable

You can't say that with a straight face when he's so vehemently anti-Linux. To this day, you still can't download Fortnite or the Epic Games Store on Linux. At the end of the day, all Tim actually cares about is his corporation having to pay rent to another corporation.

cedws• 1 year ago

The business model is still getting kids hooked on digital crack and getting them to beg their parents for money. He’s no saint either.

pirsquare• 1 year ago

Because all other aspects of their businesses except services beat expectations. So we can't really say if this change will be permanent indefinitely.

nashashmi3• 1 year ago

… except for apps on the United States storefront, the apps may not…

US based app developers hosting apps on app stores in other countries should also be covered by the injunction. What am I missing? Is the injunction only covering US based app market? And does not cover app developers?

Tim, come back. The deed is yet to be completed.

CrimsonRain• 1 year ago

My question also.

layer85• 1 year ago

Apple’s wording is “apps on the United States storefront” [0], so apps on the US app store only.

[0] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#pay...

saurik4• 1 year ago

Right. We get that's what's Apple is doing, but the question is whether it satisfies the injunction.

FWIW, I will claim it does not: it should cover--at least for any developer in the United States--any app published by any Apple-affiliated entity, anywhere, and certainly covers Apple's centrally managed global store.

redbell• 1 year ago

In the European Union, developers can also distribute notarized iOS and iPadOS apps from alternative app marketplaces and directly from their website.

Well, this was only possible because the EU had pushed hard toward this openness otherwise, we wouldn't expect Apple to do this.

For everything else there is always the open Internet. If the App Store model and guidelines or alternative app marketplaces and Notarization for iOS and iPadOS apps are not best for your app or business idea that’s okay, we provide Safari for a great web experience too.

IMO, Safari on iOS do not have a great experience for web devs who are willing to distribute their apps as PWAs, especially when there is no alternative browser that provides additional capabilities, they are all skinned Safaris. Take for instance the Vibration API [1], it has been supported since a long time in Chrome mobile but not in Safari. I believe it does an excellent job in giving a PWA some native-feeling when being used. Still though, I still miss that haptic feedback is not yet supported by Chrome. Bluetooth [2] is yet another missing API in Safari.

Of course, for these (and other) web APIs to be abused by developers, I encourage browser vendors to disable them by default when requested from a website and enable them ONLY on user consent. On the other hand, when a user installs the PWA, these privileges should be granted automatically with the ability to disable them by the user.

To finalize, another excellent API that facilitate the installation of PWAs by triggering an install prompt [3] is not supported in iOS Safari, which does really makes me wonder: "How Safari provides a great web experience?"

___________________

1. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Vibration_A...

2. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Web_Bluetoo...

3. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Progressive_web...

crowcroft• 1 year ago

Apple constantly says paying through the app store is better for consumers, so why are they so hesitant to simply compete? Unless...

perdomon• 1 year ago

The difference between the quality of software in the Apple App Store versus the Google Play Store is dramatic, in my opinion. Apple has succeeded in increasing the bar to entry and standards to the point where a lot of the blatant trash/advertising malware present in the Google Play Store is caught by the net of the App Store submission process (and the $99 developer fee).

I do believe the court when they say that Apple has engaged in seriously anticompetitive behavior, and I don't look to Apple as some sort of altruistic honest company, but I also am curious to see if this reduces the average 'value' of a given app in the App Store. On the other hand, it could encourage the development of high-quality software since devs aren't paying the 30%+ tax on App Store sales.

stetrain2• 1 year ago

They could absolutely maintain that quality of software in the App Store while also allowing people to install software from other sources.

By fighting so hard to keep the App Store as the sole distribution mechanism for iPhone software Apple has invited these compromises on themselves.

reylas3• 1 year ago

So, what keeps all app developers from charging 0 to "buy" the app from the store, then nickel and dime the user inside the app?

This really feels like the beginning of things way worse.

nielsbot• 1 year ago

they already do that. (free to download, in app purchases after)

reylas3• 1 year ago

But apple was getting a cut of the in-app. Now they can't.

McGlockenshire• 1 year ago

If Apple was worried about this, they shouldn't have flaunted the court order in a way that made the judge say in the subsequent order that "this is an injunction, not a negotiation."

reylas3• 1 year ago

I understand what you are saying, but not what I am getting at. If you were a developer and had a choice between a "one-time fee" with Apple taking 30% vs "free to download" but redirect to an outside payment system, which one would you chose?

I am worried that now game companies are incentivized to abandon "initial purchase" games/apps and go the "loot-box, subscription" route.

Is this the final nail in the pay one time for games coffin?

duped2• 1 year ago

Nothing stops them from doing that today.

But alternative payment flows will put some pressure on Apple to improve IAP features that many developers want to provide better experiences for their customers. Like IAP kind of sucks, unless your revenue model is tricking kids into charging things to mom's CC or finding whales and getting them addicted to your gambling app.

mvdtnz2• 1 year ago

Competition keeps app developers from behaving badly.

Apple App Store guidelines remove ban on encouraging external payments in US

Related Stories