Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Letting 'Reader' Apps Offer Links for Account Sign Ups Outside of the App Store to Close Japan Investigation

Wildkraut said:
We are not there yet, more will come (US, EU, AU, UK, and more), face it…
And even when it’s over it won’t be over, Apple will stay on the watchlist for upcoming anticompetitive business practices.
👍😎2:0 for customers and developers \o/
Click to expand...

While we're running around changing the world... can someone sue Amazon to let other online stores sell Kindle books?

I find it anti-competitive that Amazon is the only company who can sell content for the #1 Ebook device in the world.

:p
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: icanhazmac, amartinez1660 and WiseAJ
“Apple plans to help developers of reader apps "protect users when they link to an external website to make purchases."

🤣 I almost spitted my coffee out…
Help developers setting up a link? A LINK? lol
Sounds more like trying to create another gate to nanny developers.

I smell post lawsuits coming… fights for the link… smells like proxy…
JFTC better review the new Guidelines.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NVD
cmaier said:
How is this good news for consumers? They aren’t going to pay any less, and now they have to put up with different terms and conditions, cancellation procedures, etc. for every subscription service.
Click to expand...

How do you know they aren’t going to pay less? There are already vendors who sell their stuff at a lower price if you buy a subscription directly from them instead of buying from the Apple store. There are vendors who won’t even let you buy from the App Store at all, so at least there is a chance they‘ll allow Apple in-app purchases if they can tell you about the alternatives.

The other day, Tim Cook said that if they couldn‘t get their 30% on each sale then they’d have extract it some other way. Hopefully, someone took him to one side and pointed out a rather unsavoury point in Microsoft’s history where they were doing the same thing.

MS believed that since they were responsible for the popularity of PC hardware, they were entitled to a percentage of the sticker price on every PC sold – even if the PC in question wasn’t sold with a Windows licence. This didn’t end well for Microsoft as it was successfully used as evidence against them in their antitrust trial.

With any luck, this shows that Apple has realised it’s heading for a showdown it won’t win. They can’t even hide behind the facade of protecting customer privacy anymore.

And no one is saying that consumers can’t use the regular Apple in-app purchase if they want to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0924487, Rogifan, NVD and 2 others
This is the only law that makes sense. Out of all the countries that are clueless about handling this issue.
Say for apps like a note taking app, calendar, camera, games, spreadsheets, etc, they are using Apple’s API’s to create the app. In fact most of the app’s code is created by Apple. Therefore Apple deserves a cut.

But for reader apps, the main service is else where. Apple taking 30% cut is too much. Apple deserves something for the API’s. But not 30%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Scrip
MuppetGate said:
And no one is saying that consumers can’t use the regular Apple in-app purchase if they want to.
Click to expand...
Only if the developer allows it. Can’t use Apples IAP or Subscription service if the developer decides not to support or stop supporting it.

They should have made it a requirement to offer Apple’s methods if they want to take advantage of this new Link to website option.
 
GadgetDon said:
Giving my credit card to Netflix, Spotify, Hulu? I'm OK with that. To some no-name developer for a loot box? Way too risky.

If every app does do that, 3-6 months later, stories in the press about "iPhone user got charged tens of thousands of dollars after buying a $5 in game purchase, Apple must fix this!"
Click to expand...
Don't people understand what options are? Nothing's getting replaced, just added.
 
cmaier said:
How is this good news for consumers? They aren’t going to pay any less, and now they have to put up with different terms and conditions, cancellation procedures, etc. for every subscription service.
Click to expand...
The 30% going to apple wasn't making Netflix or Spotify better. Now those companies can spend that money on making their service better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rogifan
macfacts said:
The 30% going to apple wasn't making Netflix or Spotify better. Now those companies can spend that money on making their service better.
Click to expand...
Apple hasn't been able to take that 30% from new Netflix subs since Netflix since Netflix pulled out of offering subs through Apple in 2018. Spotify, too, but I don't recall which year for them. Whatever ways such money could make Netflix better has already happened. Don't expect anything new.
 
Apole just need to create an app sandbox for side loading apps and be done with it. People can then side load their iptv apps for pirate tv and emulators for games. It will likely barely make a dent in their income.
 
Astro44 said:
Wow!! So Epic has won the battle, along with everyone other developer! I guess provided the user uses this method and its not buried deep in the app ortherwise Apple still win because their payment system will be front of house. What a day!
Click to expand...
Have they? I thought Epic’s goal was to allow 3rd party app stores on iOS.
 
willchris said:
Don't people understand what options are? Nothing's getting replaced, just added.
Click to expand...
I think you will find that options to pay through the app will vanish and you will have to sign up through the website, thereby providing the company with your payment details and info.
 
Marshall73 said:
I think you will find that options to pay through the app will vanish and you will have to sign up through the website, thereby providing the company with your payment details and info.
Click to expand...
I, for myself, never do this, I just use PayPal or any other payment service. Why should you give your cc number to anyone today?
 
The article confuses me. Basically it's these two parts

Because reader apps do not offer in-app digital goods and services for purchase, Apple has agreed to let these apps share just one link to their website for "account management" purposes.
Click to expand...

The "reader" app change introduced today is a much more significant victory for Apple developers because it will allow apps to provide an in-app link to a website where a purchase can be made outside of the App Store. This will be available for apps like Spotify and Netflix, and it addresses one of the biggest issues that developers have with the App Store. Once implemented in 2022, a huge swath of developers will have an option to offer non-App Store signups to avoid the 15 to 30 percent cut that Apple takes from each transaction.
Click to expand...

The one contradicts the other. It states that Apple is only allowing the change on 'reader apps', apps that do not offer digital goods or services but yet the other paragraph states that app developers will be happy because it will allow app developers to provide an in app link to a website where purchases can be made. Excuse my ignorance but this is not what Apple is allowing, based on what is written in the article. Spotify and Netflix offer in-app purchases so just how exactly does this work against Apple saying 'reader apps do not provide in-app digital goods and services for purchase (in-app purhcases) thus they are allowing such apps to share a link to their website for 'account management purposes'.

I think the person who wrote the article needs to read what they wrote because it does not make sense at all.
 
I don't see consumers winning here. It's not like your subscriptions now will magically become cheaper, nor will these services now be magically better. They will just magically make more money.

In fact I see consumers losing. Apple will have to account for the lost revenue somehow. Since subscription services will fall flat real quick now, and app sales will take a big dive as well eventually, you can let your imagination wander and guess who will be paying the missing money.

If you now thought "uh, that's me!" you are likely to be correct. Great win, indeed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: strongy and octoberist3
jeffpeng said:
Apple will have to account for the lost revenue somehow. Since subscription services will fall flat real quick now, and app sales will take a big dive as well eventually, you can let your imagination wander and guess who will be paying the missing money.
Click to expand...

To be fair... the big services like Netflix and Spotify already stopped App Store subscriptions. Customers have to go to their websites anyway.

So Apple has already lost that revenue. Netflix stopped in 2018 and Spotify was before that, I believe.

If this new App Store policy was about game IAP... like buying Candy Crush upgrades... then yes, Apple would be frantic.

But I'm not sure Apple is really worried about media subscriptions that are already gone and can be purchased elsewhere. But who knows.

Honestly... I don't know why Apple applied the same 30% rule to these external services anyway. It's not like Netflix movies or Spotify music is streaming from Apple's data centers. That decision always seemed weird and out of place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: freedomlinux and seek3r
I can see all of this going one of two ways:

1) Apple has to keep on making piecemeal concessions like this, until the EU and/or the US gvt forces them to make big changes.

Apple basically loses control of this side of their business, due to their intransigence and unwillingness to stop defending what they see as their right to run the App Store how they want and to take the cut that they believe is theirs.

Government agencies and political representatives start to dictate to Apple how the App Store should work.

(See also Microsoft and web browsers on Windows in the early 00s).

2) Apple sees where this is going and makes some proactive big concessions, realises that whilst the App Store in its present form has had a great run, that it’s simply not tenable anymore to charge third parties simply to try and make money on their platform.

It makes changes to the governance of the App Store, let’s other payment providers in - and leaves the money on the table.

It also drops the silly - and dishonest - arguments that its making where it’s trying to use privacy as a shield for it continuing to take all the money it felt it was previously due on iOS & the App Store.

As you might be able to guess, I hope for 2 but suspect that 1 will happen.
 
If Apple hadn't been insanely greedy by taking a 30% cut, then none of this would be happening. And 15% is still too high. Unfortunately, even as a devout Apple fan, this has been on the cards for a long time. That said, the immediate consumer benefits will be minimal, and the long term problems will creep in. Yes, Apple will make less money, but the big problem is that, so far, the walled garden has largely protected consumers, and an open garden will have less benefit in terms of safety (and certainly not more benefit in respect of safety). Big corporations are not biting at Apple's heels because of a concern about consumer safety, I can assure you!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0924487 and amartinez1660
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back