Apple Slaps Warnings on Apps Using External Purchases in the EU [Updated]

[AppliedMicro]

But I want that app

So do I - without wanting to have to make purchases through Apple.

The difference is: You still get a choice of dozens of thousands apps sold on Apple’s store.
And I get no choice of software store (if it were up to Apple).

 

[surferfb]

Reading over the judge’s orders, it includes:

“Interfering with consumers' choice to proceed in or out of an app by using anything other than a neutral message apprising users that they are going to a third-party site”

Apple is deliberately disobeying the court again, so I wouldn’t be surprised if they are once again found in contempt.

The judge's order only applies to the US App Store, not the EU App Store, so they won't be found in contempt for this. The EU Commission might have something to say about it though.

 

[mrochester]

So do I - without wanting to have to make purchases through Apple.

Why not?

You can get an android and avoid Apple.

Clearest way to handle this is to 1 star review the apps that are taking away consumer choice.

 

[germanbeer007]

…and having your account with said company broken/withdrawn will deny access to all the apps (and videos) you ever bought from them.

A giant single point of failure.

That's a different issue.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Name any other retail industry where the manufacturer makes 70% of retail cost.

Name any other retail product that manufacturers are denied making direct-to-consumer sales.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Why not?

You can get an android and avoid Apple.

But I did not.

And also, where I’d have to use the Play Store - that don’t even honour the gift card I puchased.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I love that Apple continues to rile the Fandroids. Long may it continue!

And I love that Apple continues to provide ammunition to judges and antitrust regulators.

More such shenanigans - the harder courts of law, lawmakers and regulators will come down on them.
More fines and more, wider-reaching injunctions.

 

[surferfb]

Name any other retail product that manufacturers are denied making direct-to-consumer sales.

While this will be very jurisdiction dependent, at least in the US I can name a few:

• Alcohol
• Firearms
• Pharmaceuticals
• Automobiles (some states)
• Caskets/Urns (some states)

 

[AppliedMicro]

That would be massively anticompetitive to use the profits from the hardware business to subsidise the app store.

Just as it’s massively anticompetitive to give away App Store services for (almost) free, in order to monopolise the market for mobile apps. And prop up their hardware business.

Just think how anticompetitively unfair it is to other smartphone (hardware) manufacturers that can’t offer such an ecosystem - that Apple is allegedly giving away below cost.

The app store needs to be self-succient. You wouldn't expect any other app store to operate at a loss.

…and so does Apple’s hardware business need to be self-sufficient.

 

[ofarlig]

If you find yourself defending a mega mega mega corporation, it may be time to reevaluate.

Then you should love the warnings since they provide the consumer with additional information so they can make an informed decision. Consumers gain nothing from getting less information by hiding it, the only ones winning from that are software companies.

 

[N47H]

Loss leaders are also anticompetitive. Using advertising revenue to fund other products and services is anti-competitive.

None of it should be legal.

Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on the smartphone market.

Using advertising revenue to fund other products and services is anti competitive? This very website you use wouldn’t exist if that were the case, TV networks would be a thing of the past, don’t talk nonsense.

As for loss leaders being anti competitive that’s only true if your intentions are to kill off competition. Using your wealth to soak up costs and sell products at an impossible to match loss until your competition is dead, and then rise prices, that’s anti competitive. If you’re purely doing it to drum up sales or draw people in to buy your other products that make up that loss then that’s fair game, you don’t need to be a giant in industry to do that, even little local shops can do that.

That’s not an issue in the US.

The anti steering provision is under appeal. And Apple rightfully so is positioning it as they should still get a cut.

it will be an issue in the US, probably not under the current regime, but certainly the next one. But that’s a moot point as this story largely relates to an EU ruling. And no Apple shouldn’t get a cut, their own rules are inconsistent, plenty of apps with exceptions (normally the bigger players that they know full well would harm their platform if they left). It’s a total nonsense.

 

[whitby]

I am fairly sure I have nothing more to add here but I will make the point that Apple just keep doubling down on their so called more secure payment system and implying that every one else's is not, which is total nonsense.

Some payment systems are less secure but not all and just because they offer a secure system, similar to say, Amazon or Google or Samsung or a vast number of others does not allow them to issue such a dire warning. They can indicate that they have a secure system available but, because they charge more than almost everyone else to use it, it will cost more. The issue I have with Apple is they charge so much for their payment system and not a reasonable transaction fee e.g. 5%, not that they charge for the service. 30% or 27% or what ever it is, is daylight robbery.

Please stop this Apple, you are doing the company and your reputation irrefutable and permanent harm. Keep making the products we want to buy and challenge our preconceptions. That Apple does seem to be receding into the rear view mirror and I am eternally sad.

 

[N47H]

Then you should love the warnings since they provide the consumer with additional information so they can make an informed decision. Consumers gain nothing from getting less information by hiding it, the only ones winning from that are software companies.

An informed choice would come from a position of impartiality not one that’s designed to sway the opinion of the consumer. It wouldn’t have a warning triangle next to it, it wouldn’t say anything but “this app uses external payment platforms”. Don’t talk utter drivel.

 

[falainber]

Nope. It's making it clear Apple is no longer handling payments through IAP for certain apps and consumers deserve to CLEARLY know this.

That would be correct if Apple simply stated that the app does not use its payment system. Adding "private" and "secure" in the warning is FUD. This implies that the other system may not be "private" and "secure". That's not Apple's place to decide. What this will do is that the app developers will leave App Store for the alternative stores at the first opportunity.

 

[ofarlig]

An informed choice would come from a position of impartiality not one that’s designed to sway the opinion of the consumer. It wouldn’t have a warning triangle next to it, it would say anything but this app uses external payment platforms and that was it. Don’t talk utter drivel.

What's wrong with a warning triangle for something that objectivly involves more risk to the consumer? If someone gets scared from that warning they are exactly the person that should heed it since they aren't informed enough to vet the payment solution to make sure it is safe.

 

[N47H]

What's wrong with a warning triangle for something that objectivly involves more risk to the consumer? If someone gets scared from that warning they are exactly the person that should heed it since they aren't informed enough to vet the payment solution to make sure it is safe.

How does it objectively involve more risk? Me buying something from Spotify for example is no more a risk than buying something from Apple. That’s not objective in the slightest.

 

[turbineseaplane]

What's wrong with a warning triangle for something that objectivly involves more risk to the consumer?

Because nothing about it involves objectively more risk.

Acceding to that framing is carrying water for Apple business objectives.

 

[AppliedMicro]

While this will be very jurisdiction dependent, at least in the US I can name a few:

• Alcohol
• Firearms
• Pharmaceuticals
• Automobiles (some states)
• Caskets/Urns (some states)

As @I7guy would argue, these are matters of life and death.

Excepts the automobiles and caskets.

 

[N47H]

Just stinks of greedy developers trying to take choice away from us consumers to me.

I don’t want developers to force me to use a certain App Store to get their app. I want their app to be in the Apple App Store where I want to shop.

I don’t want developers to force me to use a payment method I don’t want to use. I want them to accept Apple payments.

I am the consumer, this all should be my choice.

What on earth? The developers aren’t taking anything away from you, you don’t want developers to tell you where to get your apps from but you’re happy for Apple to do so? Consumer choice should surely involve having more choice, you don’t want more choice, you just want to defend Apple and only buy from Apple and let them have their extra profits because it somehow gives you joy and justifies your position as a huge fan. You and Apple are limiting others, if people want the option to pay for in app purchases from a number of different options then that doesn’t take away what you want, that route is still there, but your way takes away the wants of other consumers.

See Fortnite as a good example of this, they sell V-bucks (what started all this off in the first place) on games consoles via the consoles payment platforms for a set price, they also offer the opportunity to buy directly from them at a lower price as no cut is taken from them. Everyone wins, consumers have choice, developers make more money from direct sales and the console market places still take the cuts from people like you who like to cut their own noses off to spite their face.

 

[ofarlig]

How does it objectively involve more risk? Me buying something from Spotify for example is no more a risk than buying something from Apple. That’s not objective in the slightest.

Because nothing about involves objectively more risk.

Acceding to that framing is carrying water for Apple business objectives.

You are not comparing Apple to Spotify, you are comparing Apple to something that you don't know if it is coded by a year old Russian criminal or a legit corporation.

Once you are putting the effort of researching if the payment solution is legit or not on the consumer it will be more risky than if Apple uses their capabilities to do it.

 

[N47H]

You are not comparing Apple to Spotify, you are comparing Apple to something that you don't know if it is coded by a year old Russian criminal or a legit corporation.

Once you are putting the effort of researching if the payment solution is legit or not it will be more risky than if Apple uses their capabilities to do it.

We aren’t though are we. Look at the example image in the article, it’s a known and established business. Plus all your argument is doing is highlighting how terrible a job Apple is doing at policing and moderating what goes on sale in their own marketplace. If they think there’s that many illegitimate apps and developers on their platform perhaps they should do more about that before demanding more money from legitimate developers?

Apple don’t give a hoot about the safety of your purchase nor the legitimacy of the business practices. Case in point they’ve let the App Store become an unregulated mess of predatory business practices. What was once a nice store front where I could grab a simple app for 69 cents has turned into a cess pit of weekly subscriptions that are there to catch out people, yet Apple are doing nothing about this practice, they’re enabling it, but of course they care about the consumer. An example, the iOS built in clock app is awfully limited, my son wanted to setup some alarms that worked on a two week rota, but the built in clock and alarms don’t allow for that. So instead we scoured the App Store for alarm clock apps that did do this, every single one of them required a subscription for an obscene amount every month (and in some cases every week!) for an alarm clock, and the whole pricing structure is hidden behind small text. They have apps that say they do things they don’t, for example all the ad fuelled scammy apps that say you can play games to earn money, when you absolutely can’t. Or there are kids games with adverts in that are aimed at adults and highly inappropriate. If Apple was doing all this for the sake of the consumers wallet and safety, none of this would be going on in their own house.

 

[ofarlig]

We aren’t though are we. Look at the example image in the article, it’s a known and established business. Plus all your argument is doing is highlighting how terrible a job Apple is doing at policing and moderating what goes on sale in their own marketplace. If they think there’s that many illegitimate apps and developers on their platform perhaps they should do more about that before demanding more money from legitimate developers?

Apple don’t give a hoot about the safety of your purchase nor the legitimacy of the business practices. Case in point they’ve let the App Store become an unregulated mess of predatory business practices. What was once a nice store front where I could grab a simple app for 69 cents has turned into a cess pit of weekly subscriptions that are there to catch out people, yet Apple are doing nothing about this practice, they’re enabling it, but of course they care about the consumer. An example, the iOS built in clock app is awfully limited, my son wanted to setup some alarms that worked on a two week rota, but the built in clock and alarms don’t allow for that. So instead we scoured the App Store for alarm clock apps that did do this, every single one of them required a subscription for an obscene amount every month (and in some cases every week!) for an alarm clock, and the whole pricing structure is hidden behind small text. They have apps that say they do things they don’t, for example all the ad fuelled scammy apps that say you can play games to earn money, when you absolutely can’t. Or there are kids games with adverts in that are aimed at adults and highly inappropriate. If Apple was doing all this for the sake of the consumers wallet and safety, none of this would be going on in their own house.

Apples have to allow everyone to use whatever payment solution they feel like, not just approved businesses. It is also impossible for them to make sure that all developers are legit at all times, the problem with allowing them to use whatever payment solution they want on a webpage is that they can easily change it from a legit one to a scam one after having their app approved by Apple.

I think Apple only cares about making money, but that doesn't mean that it cannot also be good for consumers to be warned when no one have vetted the payment solutions being used. People seem to think giving consumers more information is bad just because Apple can make money by doing so.

 

[germanbeer007]

That would be correct if Apple simply stated that the app does not use its payment system. Adding "private" and "secure" in the warning is FUD.

No, it's correct either way.
It's not FUD. FUD would be describing external purchases as insecure and/or not private. Or saying "This app does not support private and secure payment system without qualifying it to "App Store's". Just saying "It uses external purchases" does not spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

 

[I7guy]

What on earth? The developers aren’t taking anything away from you, you don’t want developers to tell you where to get your apps from but you’re happy for Apple to do so?

By exactly the same logic why do you care about alternate app stores or payment links? As a consumer I don’t care where I get my app from or how I pay.

Consumer choice should surely involve having more choice, you don’t want more choice, you just want to defend Apple and only buy from Apple and let them have their extra profits because it somehow gives you joy and justifies your position as a huge fan.

Yes, exactly I defend Apple here. As a consumer how does this benefit you? Be specific.

You and Apple are limiting others, if people want the option to pay for in app purchases from a number of different options then that doesn’t take away what you want, that route is still there, but your way takes away the wants of other consumers.

Again, other than those who dislike Apple because how does it benefit a consumer. Be specific.

See Fortnite as a good example of this, they sell V-bucks (what started all this off in the first place) on games consoles via the consoles payment platforms for a set price, they also offer the opportunity to buy directly from them at a lower price as no cut is taken from them.

They made 700 million in the iOS App Store. Is that not greedy enough for epic to start this war?

Everyone wins, consumers have choice, developers make more money from direct sales and the console market places still take the cuts from people like you who like to cut their own noses off to spite their face.

What win. Can you explain the win? Are your monthly bills going to down significantly because of this?

The only benefit of this is even a benefit of alternate app stores are apps that drag down the ecosystem anyway.

 

[ofarlig]

No, it's correct either way.
It's not FUD. FUD would be describing external purchases as insecure and/or not private. Or saying "This app does not support private and secure payment system without qualifying it to "App Store's". Just saying "It uses external purchases" does not spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Yeah, Apple's solution is private and secure while external processors CAN BE as private and secure but it isn't necessarily true that they are. Everything Apple put there is factually correct.