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

[N47H]

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.

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

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

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

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.

Choice ultimately lowers prices, if developers lose less money they can charge less, and if app stores have competition they can also reduce their cuts to bring customers in.

The App Store as I’ve highlighted in another post already is an absolute dumpster fire right now filled with predatory subscription apps that offer you nothing for the money (or very little) and are there to catch people out and charge in some cases extortionate weekly fees that they hope you don’t spot on your bills. There’s also plenty of fake apps, and apps with inappropriate content/adverts. Apple put in no effort to fix these things or police their store because one it makes them more money, and two consumers have nowhere else to go anyway. The moment we get new App Store alternates and one does police things better, guess what Apple will do?

Competition breeds improvement and pro consumer practices. Enough reason for you?

 

[I7guy]

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?

One thing has nothing to with another. Microsoft has been selling windows for decades. You think they can close all the loopholes and yet. In the same vein people use criticism that there exists some less then stellar apps.

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.

That’s an over generalization of the issue.

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.

In the beginning things were small but have ramped up as ne’er do wells try out bad things.

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.

What’s the use case? Couldn’t find a suitable alarm clock app?

 

[I7guy]

Choice ultimately lowers prices,

Yes with some things, not houses, not cars, not hospitals, I could go on. And probably not sponsors. Price performance by choice here is an illusion.

if developers lose less money they can charge less, and if app stores have competition they can also reduce their cuts to bring customers in.

That’s a hypothetical. Not to mention that the “choice” is by bad regulations that give away assets.

The App Store as I’ve highlighted in another post already is an absolute dumpster fire right now filled with predatory subscription apps that offer you nothing for the money (or very little) and are there to catch people out and charge in some cases extortionate weekly fees that they hope you don’t spot on your bills. There’s also plenty of fake apps, and apps with inappropriate content/adverts. Apple put in no effort to fix these things or police their store because one it makes them more money, and two consumers have nowhere else to go anyway. The moment we get new App Store alternates and one does police things better, guess what Apple will do?

I haven’t found it to be that. Granted when I look for something I know what I look for.

Competition breeds improvement and pro consumer practices. Enough reason for you?

No. In this case I am highly doubtful as true competition is great. This isn’t true competition. This is competition by government over regulation.

 

[N47H]

One thing has nothing to with another. Microsoft has been selling windows for decades. You think they can close all the loopholes and yet. In the same vein people use criticism that there exists some less then stellar apps.

That’s an over generalization of the issue.

In the beginning things were small but have ramped up as ne’er do wells try out bad things.

What’s the use case? Couldn’t find a suitable alarm clock app?

I explained the use case in the message, I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at? It’s not a generalisation, it’s a true reflection of Apple App Store and it’s turning of a blind eye to consumer safety when it benefits their bottom line. You can’t also complain about generalisation and then say it’s ok for Apple to use a blanket statement about payment platforms potentially being unsafe when there are plenty of reliable developers that will have that tag placed in their apps.

 

[N47H]

Yes with some things, not houses, not cars, not hospitals, I could go on. And probably not sponsors. Price performance by choice here is an illusion.

That’s a hypothetical. Not to mention that the “choice” is by bad regulations that give away assets.

I haven’t found it to be that. Granted when I look for something I know what I look for.

No. In this case I am highly doubtful as true competition is great. This isn’t true competition. This is competition by government over regulation.

House prices are directly influenced by competition, it’s probably one of the most tried and true representations of supply vs demand out there. If there is an abundance of available properties the prices drop, if there is a shortage of houses the prices go up. Yes there are other factors like mortgage interest rates etc but in general competition absolutely drives house prices. It also absolutely does with cars too, where you dreamt that isn’t the case I’ve no idea.

You’ve just proven yourself to be somewhat of an elitist. Well at least you think you are. The comment about “I know what I’m looking for when I look for an app” is ridiculously awful. I’ve never had a need (as in my example) for a scheduled alarm clock that works on a two week rota until now and I doubt you have either, so why would I (or you) have knowledge of that particular section of the App Store? Having researched all the available options they’re all the same, all subscription based and predatory, and Apple are allowing this and doing nothing about it because it makes them money. There are those who are less technologically minded who miss read these things or don’t understand they’re being signed up to an $8 a week subscription to set an alarm that goes off every other Thursday at 9am. Kids apps filled with inappropriate adverts also has nothing to do with “knowing what you’re looking for” either so you can stand down from that high horse of yours now.

 

[darngooddesign]

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.

The judge had actually ruled that Apple had the right to charge a fair commission based on valid reasons. She told Apple to come back with that % and the math that supported it, but Apple picked 27% with zero justification. Now they can’t charge a %.

 

[H2SO4]

Apple's comment doesn't say billing from elsewhere is insecure. It just says the app isn't using App Store's secure apis.

Here's your statement;
Consumers deserve to know whether or not the app they're downloading is going to be insecure and/or frustrating to use.
None of what Apple does guarantees any of that.

 

[germanbeer007]

Here's your statement;
Consumers deserve to know whether or not the app they're downloading is going to be insecure and/or frustrating to use.

Yes. When they're no longer going through Apple, it's no longer warranted that it is going to be secure and/or easy to use. This is something consumers deserve to know ahead of time before the app is bought. What I said is 100% accurate.

And here's your statment "Apples comment is not open". explain "not open".

None of what Apple does guarantees any of that.

I never said Apple guarantees external processing is insecure and/frustrating. It's weird how you pasted my statement which means you've at least read my statement twice, but yet you got what I said wrong.

 

[germanbeer007]

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

Nothing at all. Since the beginning of the App Store, digital goods and services is backed by Apple's processing. This is no longer the case and customers need be warned in a clear way. If anything, the warning triangle needs to be even more obvious to the user as I assume most customer would just mentally block that out just like they press "I agree" in software updates.

Anyone else who disagrees clearly has clouded judgement and they're just going to attack a big corp because it's big, not because it's the right thing to do. Those people almost never have any objective takes.

 

[MikeSweden]

I can totally understand this. The blame is going to fall on Apple if someone ends up being scammed. Not the external service.

 

[jimothyGator]

Complete misdirection.
It's the creepy (largely U.S.-based) internet advertising industry that's putting tons upon tons of trackers on web sites, trying to stalk internet users everywhere and everytime.

Not the E.U.

That was never my claim. My claim was, EU is to blame for the annoying GDPR and cookie prompts that pop up constantly, because they are. (California, too; the EU on the Pacific).

Apple’s Safari browser has a much cleaner way of handling tracking cookies that doesn’t require pestering a user any time they visit a new site (or, ironically, clear their cookies.)

Show me one person who is glad to be asked time after time after time about their cookie preferences. To the lay person, the prompts are either incomprehensible or simply ignored, and the more technically adept people don’t need them either, since they know how to block tracking cookies in more effective ways.

If you don’t like creepy tracking, there’s a US based company that doesn’t like them either. It’d be nice if the EU didn’t have such a grudge against them.

 

[Meatwad]

Given the profit margin on an iPhone ranges between 40-60% I’m sure this covers hosting costs. Operating servers for the App Store is part and parcel of the iPhone experience. I still don’t see it as freeloading. If you released a free app that became popular would you delete it out of guilt?

If it covered hosting costs then the app store revenue wouldn't be tracked. If you want Apple to drop all the App Store money you can bet they'll raise prices. "Services" was about 27.9% of revenue last quarter. If you want Apple to give up half of that you're mental.

No, I am saying other payment methods are also secure. germanbeer seems to have drunk too much of it, and thinks that only apple is secure

Apple hasn't been hacked yet. Meanwhile...

Ukrainian “Casher” Sentenced for Role in Worldpay Hacking Scheme

www.justice.gov

Fiserv Data Breach: What & How It Happened? | Twingate

In this article, we will discuss the Fiserv Data Breach, how it happened, what info was leaked, and what to do if affected.

www.twingate.com

Complete misdirection.
It's the creepy (largely U.S.-based) internet advertising industry that's putting tons upon tons of trackers on web sites, trying to stalk internet users everywhere and everytime.

Ok. But when they went to do something about it they did a poor job. I think they should be forced to follow California law.

 

[Ctrlos]

I'm sure it had good intentions. Either they had no clue what they're doing and shouldn't be in the position to be making these laws, or they knew what they were doing and did it anyways. Regardless, it's a forced popup and there's no other way around it.

The websites could choose not to collect personal data?

 

[robvalentine]

Nope.



yes and going through one company where only you and that company has the private CC info is literally more secure than having you and two companies having the CC info. that's the point.

If doing a payment outside of the app store, then apple doesn't need your credit card details.

I guess you would be happy with apple taking 30% of your earnings for nothing.

 

[robvalentine]

If it covered hosting costs then the app store revenue wouldn't be tracked. If you want Apple to drop all the App Store money you can bet they'll raise prices. "Services" was about 27.9% of revenue last quarter. If you want Apple to give up half of that you're mental.



Apple hasn't been hacked yet. Meanwhile...

Ukrainian “Casher” Sentenced for Role in Worldpay Hacking Scheme

www.justice.gov

Fiserv Data Breach: What & How It Happened? | Twingate

In this article, we will discuss the Fiserv Data Breach, how it happened, what info was leaked, and what to do if affected.

www.twingate.com

Ok. But when they went to do something about it they did a poor job. I think they should be forced to follow California law.

Key word is yet, and pretty much anywhere can be hacked, so what's your point?

I really don't get the apple defense here. I'm guessing none of the defenders here are developers having nearly a third of their income siphoned off unreasonably. (5% or less ala credit cards would be fair imo as that covers app hosting costs)

 

[surferfb]

I guess you would be happy with apple taking 30% of your earnings for nothing.

If my earnings were dependent on using someone else’s intellectual property and customer base I’m not sure I’d classify that as “nothing”

 

[d686546s]

If Apple doesn't post this warning, a customer has a complaint with the vendor, and asks Apple for a refund, because before this year Apple was in charge of the App Store and all payments, do you think the customer is going to say "oh, I understand completely, even though it's on your store, you can't give me a refund, that makes sense." Or are they going to scream at Apple and say "What do you mean you can't refund me. It's your store! And if you can't refund me me, you at least should have told me before hand!"

I keep reading this assertion, but is it actually true? Do consumers actually believe that Apple is responsible for every transaction they carry out on their iPhone?

I bought some cat food on the Amazon app earlier today and I doubt it would ever cross my mind to approach Apple for a refund if it didn't show up on my doorstep. The same is true for something I recently bought on eBay and the food I ordered, even though I paid for that with Apple Pay, or digital video games I recently bought on the Steam and PlayStation apps.

Why would that suddenly be different if I were able to subscribe to Netflix, buy a Kindle book or spend money on a game in their respective apps? I believe customers are perfectly used to approaching their credit card companies in other instances if there are issues, why not here?

Honestly, I'm not indifferent to what I believe are very valid concerns about less reputable payment processors, scams amor other nefarious threat actors, but I do think customers often get infantilised in these discussions.

 

[4tune8chance]

Apple has begun placing prominent warning labels on EU App Store listings that use alternative payment methods. The warning symbols appear as a red exclamation mark in a triangle, accompanied by text stating that the app "does not support the App Store's private and secure payment system" and "uses external purchases."

As noted by Michael Tsai, Apple is using its highest-level "critical" alert iconography – the same triangle symbol that macOS reserves for situations that might result in "unexpected loss of data."

Instacar, a popular Hungarian car valuation app with thousands of positive reviews, appears to be among the first to receive this treatment.

Apple's use of the warning labels comes just weeks after the European Commission fined Apple €500 million for violating the Digital Markets Act by restricting developers from informing users about alternative payment options. The Commission ordered Apple to "remove the technical and commercial restrictions on steering."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1922006170601939221

The warning labels also follow a contempt order issued by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on April 30, barring Apple from enforcing App Store rules that prevented developers from directing users to external payment methods.

Article Link: Apple Slaps Warnings on Apps Using External Purchases in the EU

What I would like is a search filter to exclude such apps.

 

[surferfb]

I keep reading this assertion, but is it actually true? Do consumers actually believe that Apple is responsible for every transaction they carry out on their iPhone?

No, not every transaction. But buying or subscribing to digital services, from inside of apps, that has been Apple’s responsibility for 17 years now.

I bought some cat food on the Amazon app earlier today and I doubt it would ever cross my mind to approach Apple for a refund if it didn't show up on my doorstep. The same is true for something I recently bought on eBay and the food I ordered, even though I paid for that with Apple Pay, or digital video games I recently bought on the Steam and PlayStation apps.

Again, it’s been clear for years now that buying something physically goes through those sites. What’s new and different is digital goods not having to go through Apple.

Why would that suddenly be different if I were able to subscribe to Netflix, buy a Kindle book or spend money on a game in their respective apps? I believe customers are perfectly used to approaching their credit card companies in other instances if there are issues, why not here?

I suspect customers will be fine with big name companies, but what if you signed up for something like Omnifocus or Fantastical? I suspect most “normal” users won’t get the difference if they’re buying in app.

Honestly, I'm not indifferent to what I believe are very valid concerns about less reputable payment processors, scams amor other nefarious threat actors, but I do think customers often get infantilised in these discussions.

My Mother in Law thought Apple made every app on the App Store for like five years after she got her first iPhone. Literally thought Apple made all of them. She’s a smart woman, just has no idea how software worked, and assumed because it was Apple’s store they were Apple’s apps.

I am not saying most people think Apple makes all the apps in the App Store, but I suspect my mother in law is much closer to the “average user” that those of us posting on MacRumors. And I can see why someone not paying attention to EU/Apple competition law would think that “I got the app through the App Store, so I should deal with Apple to get refunded”. I mean what would you think if you bought something at Walmart and you tried to return it and they told you “sorry, I know you picked this up here, but you actually bought it from someone else.” I suspect you’d be pretty confused.

I’d personally feel better if Apple’s warning was something like “This app doesn’t use Apple’s payment processing so we can’t assist with any disputes with the developer” but I think Apple should absolutely be allowed to (and should!) inform users that they can’t help if Apple’s customers have problems with purchases that are downloaded from Apple’s store.

 

[surferfb]

Everyone should read Gruber’s latest post about this. MacRumors should post a clarification ASAP.

That EU App Store Warning About External Purchases Is Not New, and Apple Proposed Improving It Nine Months Ago

Apple proposed a much less objectionable “external payments” disclosure in August, but claims that the EC told them not to implement it.

daringfireball.net

And, it turns out, Apple itself publically proposed exactly such a change back in August. Apple’s proposed updated disclosure uses a small gray i-in-circle “info” icon (replacing the bigger red !-in-triangle “warning” icon), and the following text (screenshot):

Transactions in this app are supported by the developer and not Apple.
Learn More

So why didn’t Apple make that change? THE EU TOLD THEM NOT TO!

According what I’ve been told by Apple, they were (and still are) prepared to implement these changes, including the new disclosure screen. The EC raised no objection to the new disclosure proposal, but insisted that Apple not implement the changes at the time. Then, according to Apple, the EC never provided further guidance, until last month when they fined Apple €500M for noncompliance. (And the EC still hasn’t told Apple what it wants the company to do.)

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Everyone should read Gruber’s latest post about this. MacRumors should post a clarification ASAP.

That EU App Store Warning About External Purchases Is Not New, and Apple Proposed Improving It Nine Months Ago

Apple proposed a much less objectionable “external payments” disclosure in August, but claims that the EC told them not to implement it.

daringfireball.net

So why didn’t Apple make that change? THE EU TOLD THEM NOT TO!

New or not the general sentiment of the OP is right, these are basically 'scare screens' as Gruber himself concedes

I actually think that’s very useful information that should be on an app’s App Store listing. Users should know what to expect, and iPhone users’ expectations are that digital goods transactions go through Apple’s IAP. The problem with this disclosure, as it stands, is the way it looks: like a big scary warning. It should be something more akin to the privacy “nutrition label” information.

 

[surferfb]

New or not the general sentiment of the OP is right, these are basically 'scare screens' as Gruber himself concedes

Yes, but the fact that Apple wanted to change these in August to be less “scary” and were told NOT to by the EU is absolutely mitigating.

I mean, aren’t people always saying on these threads that Apple should do what the EU asks?

 

[Rogifan]

I would say there is a clear difference in how most people consume physical goods compared to digital. Physical goods are mostly bought from places you already know, you don’t search the app store for an app for physical goods from unknown sources but you might for an app that provides a use.

The question is what is bad for the consumer about being warned that they have to do the research and vetting to make sure the payment platform in the app is safe to use? I see this as a win for us consumers as this means we can make informed decisions, it will hinder shady developers when trying to prey on uninformed consumers.

So if someone clicks the buy button in the Kindle app to buy an e-book should they get a scary warning message about privacy and security before it kicks them to Amazon’s website in the browser? I assume you would say no because Amazon is a well known, trusted brand. So then does Apple get to pick and choose when the scary warning message is displayed? And if so what are they basing it on? I would argue if Apple is so concerned that they need to put up a scary warning message then why is that app in the App Store in the first place?

Based on the information that came out in Judge Gonzalez’s ruling it seems like it was Tim Cook who wanted to the scarier language. We know why. Because it would make people less likely to choose that option. Everything Apple does here is about friction. Even now if you want to buy a physical book from Amazon you can do it directly without leaving the app but if you’re buying an e-book it kicks you to a browser. Why? Friction. So maybe you’ll get your books from iBooks instead because everything there happens in-app. For a company that purports to care so much about user experience that’s completely sidelined when it comes to the App Store.

 

[AppliedMicro]

My Mother in Law thought Apple made every app on the App Store for like five years after she got her first iPhone. Literally thought Apple made all of them. She’s a smart woman, just has no idea how software worked, and assumed because it was Apple’s store they were Apple’s apps.

I am not saying most people think Apple makes all the apps in the App Store, but I suspect my mother in law is much closer to the “average user” that those of us posting on MacRumors

Definitely closer to the average user.
That said, I do believe average users know that Apple doesn’t make the Facebook or Spotify app.
Or their bank’s banking app.

I mean what would you think if you bought something at Walmart and you tried to return it and they told you “sorry, I know you picked this up here, but you actually bought it from someone else.” I suspect you’d be pretty confused.

…and yet, that’s exactly Apple’s business model:

Collecting money for and from apps…

• they don’t make
• they don’t maintain
• they don’t support
• and take zero economic stake or risk in.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Collecting money for and from apps…

• they don’t make
• they don’t maintain
• they don’t support
• and take zero economic stake or risk in.

i.e. collecting unjustified rents

Its blows me away people continue to defend Apple in any way they can figure out to do so.