Apple Again Extends Deadline Requiring Apps Offering Virtual Group Events to Use In-App Purchases

[MacRumors]

Last fall, Apple changed its App Store rules around in-app purchases for realtime experiences, and the guidelines technically require apps that offer virtual events to more than a single person to use in-app purchases.

Apple is not yet enforcing that rule, however, and has once again extended the timeline of when in-app purchases will need to be implemented. Apple has set the new deadline for December 31, 2021, which means that apps offering digital services to groups of people can continue to accept payment methods that do not use in-app purchases and are not subject to Apple's 15 to 30 percent cut through the end of the year.

Last year, to support apps that adapted services from in-person to digital due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we temporarily deferred the requirement to offer paid online group event services (one-to-few and one-to-many realtime services) through in-app purchase in accordance with App Store Review Guideline 3.1.1. As the world continues to recover from the pandemic, we'd like to support the communities that are still providing digital services in place of in-person group events by extending the deadline further to December 31, 2021.

Apple initially planned to begin requiring apps to comply with the in-app purchase rule for group digital events in December 2020, but implemented an extension in November 2020 that would have put the deadline at June 30.

Apple says that it is not going to enforce the rule in order to continue to support communities that are still providing digital services in place of in-person group events.

The App Store rules specifically apply to one-to-a-few or one-to-many events that involve more than two people. Person-to-person experiences between two individuals do not need to use in-app purchases, so tutoring sessions, medical consultations, real estate tours, one-on-one fitness training sessions, and more can be purchased using alternative payment methods.

Many popular apps, such as ClassPass and Airbnb, normally offer real world purchase options that don't need to use in-app purchases, but have been offering virtual experiences during the pandemic. Purchases for real world experiences are not subject to in-app purchases, but purchases for digital events are, so Apple has been wanting to take a cut of sales from those apps.

Airbnb and ClassPass complained, which led to the rule that allows person-to-person experiences to skirt in-app purchase requirements.

Article Link: Apple Again Extends Deadline Requiring Apps Offering Virtual Group Events to Use In-App Purchases

 

[alex00100]

An easier rule would be "given us 15-30% of ANYTHING you do on your phone."

 

[IceStormNG]

An easier rule would be "given us 15-30% of ANYTHING you do on your phone."

That's too obvious..

 

[guzhogi]

An easier rule would be "given us 15-30% of ANYTHING you do on your phone."

Easier, yes, but better? I'm not sure. I can understand getting a cut for apps, books, music, etc. that are stored on Apple servers, and require Apple's internet distribution systems. But why give Apple a cut for other stuff that doesn't even involve Apple (ie virtual currency in games)?

 

[Bug-Creator]

But why give Apple a cut for other stuff that doesn't even involve Apple (ie virtual currency in games)?

Sure I just store my 29GB race sim on Apple's server and than you need to buy some Buggy-Coins to drive anything but the 30HP 1955 Beetle.

 

[IceStormNG]

Easier, yes, but better? I'm not sure. I can understand getting a cut for apps, books, music, etc. that are stored on Apple servers, and require Apple's internet distribution systems. But why give Apple a cut for other stuff that doesn't even involve Apple (ie virtual currency in games)?

Because that doesn't matter.. it's another way to get money. That's the only thing that counts. And as your App MUST go through the AppStore and play by Apple's rules, you have the option to pay that percentage to apple, or leave the iOS market completely.

They even don't like it if you have a service that can only be booked from outside. Smaller App developers reported that Apple "forced" them to also include IAPs instead of just relying on their website (which they didn't even promoted in the App).

 

[zorinlynx]

If Apple would drop these idiotic requirements, they wouldn't be dealing with so much antitrust fallout right now.

Apple should concentrate on making their payment system as convenient to use as possible, so it's WORTH losing the cut, rather than forbidding developers from using other methods.

 

[pers0n]

I'm surprised if you buy something on Amazon through Safari, they dont require 30%

 

[guzhogi]

They even don't like it if you have a service that can only be booked from outside. Smaller App developers reported that Apple "forced" them to also include IAPs instead of just relying on their website (which they didn't even promoted in the App).

Doesn't Apple have a clause in their developer contract where if a company sells something both in-app and elsewhere, Apple gets favored nation status (ie the price on the App Store has to be the same or lower than where it is elsewhere). SO a company that sells magazines for $5 on their website, and has an iPad app, it has to sell the magazine for $5 or less. Can't be $5 on the website and $6 on the App Store. To add insult to injury, Apple still takes 15-30% of that.

In some ways, I can understand needing to subsidize the free & $0.99 apps out there. but even then.

If Apple would drop these idiotic requirements, they wouldn't be dealing with so much antitrust fallout right now.

With all of this, I can see why they have antitrust issues.

 

[IceStormNG]

Doesn't Apple have a clause in their developer contract where if a company sells something both in-app and elsewhere, Apple gets favored nation status (ie the price on the App Store has to be the same or lower than where it is elsewhere). SO a company that sells magazines for $5 on their website, and has an iPad app, it has to sell the magazine for $5 or less. Can't be $5 on the website and $6 on the App Store. To add insult to injury, Apple still takes 15-30% of that.

They did that but it was removed from the guidelines. So you can now charge the extra 30% for Apple in-app and the regular price on your website. That's what a we do. On Android the same. So no matter where you buy, we get the same cut more or less. Apple also pays taxes of the money the charge for you. So here in Germany with 19%, we only get 51% of what the customer pays on in the App. And we also have to pay taxes on the money we get paid out from Apple again. There's not a lot left for us.

That's why we encourage people to buy on the website instead of the app. It's better for them and for us.

 

[MauiPa]

haters, aside. If you just have a web based sign up, and a participation code you can skirt the rules anyway. The rule simply says that the in-app purchase option but be provided such that it is usable directly from the app as is. But apps already usable via subscription and what not, don't go through the App Store. Really this is the largest false narrative since November

 

[Madmic23]

I'm surprised if you buy something on Amazon through Safari, they dont require 30%

If you use the Amazon app on your iPhone Apple doesn't get a 30% cut. For these live events, they shouldn't be getting a cut of that either. They should only get a cut of purchases that can only be used in that app on your phone. If it's a purchase that can be used on a website, in real life, a reading app, etc, let the developers use their own payment method.

For games, I understand using Apple's in-app purchases system, especially if the game is free. Playstation, Nintendo and Microsoft all make developers use their payment systems, and they all charge 30%. You wouldn't be able to give your game away for free if the platforms didn't exist, and they won't exist if they don't make money.

For other apps, maybe change the requirement to be that Apple Pay has to be an option as well, but don't force in-app purchases.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

An easier rule would be "given us 15-30% of ANYTHING you do on your phone."

That is the goal. To enforce a revenue share over stuff they don’t own, create, produce or actively sell by simply forcing themselves the only entity with billing ability in town. One to one is just a technicality that can be changed any time by them. Remote classes, video conferencing ... anything served digitally over a communication network they haven’t built wither ... for now. Wait for analogs ... its just a simple step really once you start charging for stuff that you have little to do with.

Basically Apple can charge whatever goes through devices they have built yet do not own. They are the the law maker, the judge and tax maker of what goes through 50% US smarphones/population without owning them ... just by selling a device. That is what they say to the customer that are selling ... look beautiful display and camera buy this .... Yet the after math its like not owning something, getting payed for it, and still collect tax over its use. Not to mention being able to fundamentally remove the competition on whatever they set their eyes on. All tangled up with legal justifications extrapolated from pure casuistic examples in prior art. Its brilliant.

 

[kennyt72]

They did that but it was removed from the guidelines. So you can now charge the extra 30% for Apple in-app and the regular price on your website. That's what a we do. On Android the same. So no matter where you buy, we get the same cut more or less. Apple also pays taxes of the money the charge for you. So here in Germany with 19%, we only get 51% of what the customer pays on in the App. And we also have to pay taxes on the money we get paid out from Apple again. There's not a lot left for us.

That's why we encourage people to buy on the website instead of the app. It's better for them and for us.

Is that 19% on the full price of the app or with the 30% Apple cut taken off (so tax on the 70% you get), surely if it's on the full price then you're also paying tax on Apples 30% and possibly paying their share of tax as well, is this another tax dodge for Apple. Only asking as i don't know.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Apple should concentrate on making their payment system as convenient to use as possible, so it's WORTH losing the cut, rather than forbidding developers from using other methods.

What are you talking about? Apple Pay is less than 20 lines of code.

 

[IceStormNG]

Is that 19% on the full price of the app or with the 30% Apple cut taken off (so tax on the 70% you get), surely if it's on the full price then you're also paying tax on Apples 30% and possibly paying their share of tax as well, is this another tax dodge for Apple. Only asking as i don't know.

It's 19% on the full price (the price the user paid). So they (Apple) keep effectively 49% in our case.

 

[kmann1983]

If you use the Amazon app on your iPhone Apple doesn't get a 30% cut. For these live events, they shouldn't be getting a cut of that either. They should only get a cut of purchases that can only be used in that app on your phone. If it's a purchase that can be used on a website, in real life, a reading app, etc, let the developers use their own payment method.

For games, I understand using Apple's in-app purchases system, especially if the game is free. Playstation, Nintendo and Microsoft all make developers use their payment systems, and they all charge 30%. You wouldn't be able to give your game away for free if the platforms didn't exist, and they won't exist if they don't make money.

For other apps, maybe change the requirement to be that Apple Pay has to be an option as well, but don't force in-app purchases.

The excuse "but others do it" is not a valid one. It's never been a valid stance in all of history.

Times change and what's expected changes.

The stance falls apart if you ask: Ok, if third-party app stores were allowed or installing binaries (like one does on Mac or Windows) were allowed, would this still be a thing? Probably not, many, if not most, would likely host their own all the way and abandon Apple.

For example, I don't pay Microsoft to sell programs on a Windows machine nor do users pay to allow that for the "privilege".

So, in that case, what does Apple bring to the table? Is it their bandwidth being used for these live events? Their bandwidth for storage of the data for these live events? Their storage for archiving those live events?

If the answer is just.. "their storefront" then, I'm sorry, no... Apple doesn't deserve a very large cut, in my opinion. Not until they offer something substantially more --or-- offer third-party appstores or installable binaries to prove their storefront is what brings the money.

Not gonna lie, when a (very) large company tries to scare people into the idea that if they don't hand over complete control and curation then the entire ecosystem falls apart.. then.. well... I simply don't believe that company, in this case Apple. I've seen that stance far too often.. and every time it's been wrong. Every. Single. Time. Walled gardens don't work for extended periods of time.

But I'm also well aware my opinion is not shared by most so... /shrug

 

[macsareveryinteresting]

I'm surprised if you buy something on Amazon through Safari, they dont require 30%

They normally do like 15-25%.

 

[kennyt72]

It's 19% on the full price (the price the user paid). So they (Apple) keep effectively 49% in our case.

WOW and you pay tax again on the money you receive from Apple, that must be a huge overall percentage you lose, after everything including development costs, staff wages etc etc Apple probably earn more out of your apps with their 30% cut than you do which is a real shame.

 

[Confused Vorlon]

How can this be safe?

I thought IAP was required in order to keep the store safe. Are they saying it is ok to expose customers to the terrible risks of paying outside IAP???

 

[IceStormNG]

WOW and you pay tax again on the money you receive from Apple, that must be a huge overall percentage you lose, after everything including development costs, staff wages etc etc Apple probably earn more out of your apps with their 30% cut than you do which is a real shame.

Well, you pay general income tax and also some kind of "corporate tax" depending on the type of company you run here in Germany. Apple probably dodges taxes where they can. So I'm sure they make more out of it than we do. Probably even the German government gets more money out of that than we do.

That's why people buying from our site is preferred. It's cheaper for them, and more money for us.

I mean, sure Apple deserves a cut for what they provide. But overall their cut + taxes eats almost all the money.


And that might even explain some "overpriced" Apps/IAPs/Subs on the AppStore. Some devs might just be greedy, but some need to do that to earn any money at all because Apple and taxes eat such a large portion.

 

[MauiPa]

If you use the Amazon app on your iPhone Apple doesn't get a 30% cut. For these live events, they shouldn't be getting a cut of that either. They should only get a cut of purchases that can only be used in that app on your phone. If it's a purchase that can be used on a website, in real life, a reading app, etc, let the developers use their own payment method.

For games, I understand using Apple's in-app purchases system, especially if the game is free. Playstation, Nintendo and Microsoft all make developers use their payment systems, and they all charge 30%. You wouldn't be able to give your game away for free if the platforms didn't exist, and they won't exist if they don't make money.

For other apps, maybe change the requirement to be that Apple Pay has to be an option as well, but don't force in-app purchases.

they actually don't force in-app purchases, they require the option to be there so the apps have everything they need to work. If a company has its own payment system and purchase options, then they bypass the App Store payments entirely. Take Spotify, except for there inordinate whining, most people get a subscription to Spotify directly through Spotify whether on an iPhone or not. If you want to use your Spotify subscription on iPhone, you can and Apple doesn't see anything from that. However if a customer were to be new to Spotify, and have had their head under the sand for a long long time, or just not trust Spotify to keep their data safe, then they could purchase a subscription in the App Store and pay through Apple, apple would of course get the commission. All in all a stupidly small percentage of customers actually do this making Spotify the crybaby of the century for even worrying about it.

 

[MauiPa]

The excuse "but others do it" is not a valid one. It's never been a valid stance in all of history.

Times change and what's expected changes.

The stance falls apart if you ask: Ok, if third-party app stores were allowed or installing binaries (like one does on Mac or Windows) were allowed, would this still be a thing? Probably not, many, if not most, would likely host their own all the way and abandon Apple.

For example, I don't pay Microsoft to sell programs on a Windows machine nor do users pay to allow that for the "privilege".

So, in that case, what does Apple bring to the table? Is it their bandwidth being used for these live events? Their bandwidth for storage of the data for these live events? Their storage for archiving those live events?

If the answer is just.. "their storefront" then, I'm sorry, no... Apple doesn't deserve a very large cut, in my opinion. Not until they offer something substantially more --or-- offer third-party appstores or installable binaries to prove their storefront is what brings the money.

Not gonna lie, when a (very) large company tries to scare people into the idea that if they don't hand over complete control and curation then the entire ecosystem falls apart.. then.. well... I simply don't believe that company, in this case Apple. I've seen that stance far too often.. and every time it's been wrong. Every. Single. Time. Walled gardens don't work for extended periods of time.

But I'm also well aware my opinion is not shared by most so... /shrug

very simple explanation. You forget, Windows created a monopoly and had to open their systems. Remember when Microsoft had secret code that they could use in their products that made them better and faster than any competition? well with virtually 100% of the PC being windows at the time, it was inevitable. Apple is a small fraction and it is their platform they should be free as a company to do what they want with it. Google is always telling us how much bigger Android is than Apple, so Apple is no where close to a monopoly. There are also easy workarounds for companies to sell and bill through their own systems and use their apps on the devices for free from Apple (take Spotify as an example where all existing subscriptions play just fine and apple gets nothing). So if you sell and bill through Apple's App Store, that's what they bring to the table. You're analogy would be like selling your product through Amazon, but not paying Amazon any fees.

 

[ksec]

Apple is a small fraction and it is their platform they should be free as a company to do what they want with it. Google is always telling us how much bigger Android is than Apple, so Apple is no where close to a monopoly.

Apple has 65% of US Smartphone market and growing. Not exactly a tiny fraction.

Google hasn't said anything about Android being bigger since 2015. That is half the life time of current Smartphone history.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

The excuse "but others do it" is not a valid one. It's never been a valid stance in all of history.

Times change and what's expected changes.

The stance falls apart if you ask: Ok, if third-party app stores were allowed or installing binaries (like one does on Mac or Windows) were allowed, would this still be a thing? Probably not, many, if not most, would likely host their own all the way and abandon Apple.

For example, I don't pay Microsoft to sell programs on a Windows machine nor do users pay to allow that for the "privilege".

So, in that case, what does Apple bring to the table? Is it their bandwidth being used for these live events? Their bandwidth for storage of the data for these live events? Their storage for archiving those live events?

If the answer is just.. "their storefront" then, I'm sorry, no... Apple doesn't deserve a very large cut, in my opinion. Not until they offer something substantially more --or-- offer third-party appstores or installable binaries to prove their storefront is what brings the money.

Not gonna lie, when a (very) large company tries to scare people into the idea that if they don't hand over complete control and curation then the entire ecosystem falls apart.. then.. well... I simply don't believe that company, in this case Apple. I've seen that stance far too often.. and every time it's been wrong. Every. Single. Time. Walled gardens don't work for extended periods of time.

But I'm also well aware my opinion is not shared by most so... /shrug

Nothing? This self entitlegeneration ...

You bring your app, your customer his device and they bring the App Store.

The later a convenient way to pay, install and manage app updates that the customer has bought or subscribed. By natural law this would be impossible to do in any other way securely and privately.

Further more remember. Apple created the iPhone. Without the it you would not have an app to make. There would be no digital events. In the end 30% of your revenue is peanuts. You may thank them should be 50%.

It’s just business.