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

[wbeasley]

Is Apple allowed to add a Settings > Payment toggle so you can turn on "Only use Apple Payments"?

if by default it is off then it's allowing user choice (meeting EU needs) but if you turn it on then you can stop people going outside the AppStore and risking payment issues. Good for family members who dont always think before handing over card details.

Noone seems to be talking about refund.

Are Apple going to add an extra message that if a refund is required they wont be handling it?
So good luck with that... don't mad at us...

 

[wbeasley]

Outside payments... what could go wrong?

I'm trying to install an updated version of Paragon Software "NTFS for Mac" since the old version doesnt like the OS version I now run.

They also changed their User Account software and new versions need a new account.
So I created one.

Now it wont let me log in and wont send me an email to reset the password.
And to Activate the software I've paid for, I need to sign in before they will let me enter the code.
So I'm stuck with a trial that's expired and an app that I can't activate...
AND I have four tickets in Zen Desk system and two emails in the last two weeks that remain unanswered.

All to just get an account reset.

Imagine if every bit of software you buy through iOS had the bad level of service from outside payments?

Paragon should be ashamed of their customer service.
The old app used to work well and I was happy to upgrade to keep using the function.
But I'm not happy with how they are handling issues.

 

[R!TTER]

That has nothing to do with external payments, it's just greedy corps being greedy - not unlike Apple!

 

[ofarlig]

Is Apple allowed to add a Settings > Payment toggle so you can turn on "Only use Apple Payments"?

if by default it is off then it's allowing user choice (meeting EU needs) but if you turn it on then you can stop people going outside the AppStore and risking payment issues. Good for family members who dont always think before handing over card details.

Noone seems to be talking about refund.

Are Apple going to add an extra message that if a refund is required they wont be handling it?
So good luck with that... don't mad at us...

Yeah I would love that for elderly family members, the App store payment solution offers many good things like easy cancellation of subscriptions which could be made very hard with external soluations.

Honestly I would probably use that setting myself since I’d rather pay more for a seamless handling of purchases when going interacting with smaller vendors.

 

[wbeasley]

Yeah I would love that for elderly family members, the App store payment solution offers many good things like easy cancellation of subscriptions which could be made very hard with external soluations.

Honestly I would probably use that setting myself since I’d rather pay more for a seamless handling of purchases when going interacting with smaller vendors.

I would turn it ON too

 

[AppliedMicro]

Is Apple allowed to add a Settings > Payment toggle so you can turn on "Only use Apple Payments"?

Why not?
In-app payments processed by Apple is merely another feature to check/screen for, isn’t it?

The issue of course would be that Apple - being the malicious compiler they are - would be trying to sneak it in as an option when setting up your account or making your first purchase. With a big scary warning message.

if by default it is off then it's allowing user choice (meeting EU needs) but if you turn it on then you can stop people going outside the AppStore and risking payment issues

Just make it apply to every app on a non-discriminatory basis:
Uber, Booking.com and McDonald’s, etc.

Given how they’re all accepting normal (non-IAP) card payments in their apps without much fuss (from Apple) there’s no reason to unjustifiedly discriminate apps that provide digital goods and services.

 

[Rogifan]

First of all, the message isn’t scary at all it is completely factual. Apple being Apple I was expecting something actually twisted. They could even have said that external payments can be insecure and not private and it would still be factual, so they even held back.

Apple has no way of knowing if a smaller developer selling digital goods might use an insecure payment platform or not. They have been forced to allow apps using anything that the developer wants with no control or oversight. So keeping them off the store is impossible, for better or worse the consumer is now responsible for researching the payment platforms security for these apps.

Why Apple does something doesn’t change whether or not the result is good. Anyone who is pro consumers should want the consumer to be warned when they need to do their own vetting.

OK but something that’s also completely factual could exclude the “private” and “secure” language. If all it said was ‘You will be redirected to the browser to complete purchase’ that would be completely factual too.

I haven’t read the entire ruling by the judge but as far as I know it said nothing about who can and cannot be in the App Store. What is stopping Apple from implementing a policy that if an app chooses to link out for payment they have to provide information on what payment system is being used and if Apple is concerned the payment system is shady they can chose not to approve the app update. So the app can either use Apple’s IAP or get taken off the store. And maybe this just applies to smaller developers. This of course is presuming there are all these apps on the App Store who would stop using Apple’s IAP in favor of some shady payment platform. I don’t believe that to be true. I’d also be curious to know more about all these shady payment platforms. Is that even really a thing?

 

[Rogifan]

Don’t you know that stealing card information is a big business for criminals? There’s a reason you have to be careful where you enter it online.

That is what makes it logical that there is a warning when the burden of vetting the payment processor is pushed to the consumer.

Currently there is no warning in the Kindle app when you tap ‘Buy book’. It kicks you to Amazon’s website in the browser. Do you think there should be a warning? What about all the e-commerce that goes directly through the browser to begin with. Should Apple be providing warning messages there too? I mean I just bought a pair of shoes on a website last night. Do I need nanny Apple telling me to beware because who knows what Shopify might do with my credit card info?

 

[surferfb]

Currently there is no warning in the Kindle app when you tap ‘Buy book’. It kicks you to Amazon’s website in the browser. Do you think there should be a warning? What about all the e-commerce that goes directly through the browser to begin with. Should Apple be providing warning messages there too? I mean I just bought a pair of shoes on a website last night. Do I need nanny Apple telling me to beware because who knows what Shopify might do with my credit card info?

The browser is the browser and has always worked the way it does. Apps linking out from inside the App is new, and goes against how things have worked for 17 years. I think it is reasonable to assume that most users aren't going to be up to date on Apple's court wins and losses and might justifiably think that if they click on something in an app to buy it that Apple is the one handling the payment.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The browser is the browser and has always worked the way it does. Apps linking out from inside the App is new, and goes against how things have worked for 17 years. I think it is reasonable to assume that most users aren't going to be up to date on Apple's court wins and losses and might justifiably think that if they click on something in an app to buy it that Apple is the one handling the payment.

I don't know ... folks are already used to payments going all over the place on computing devices, even in many Apps in the iOS App Store that Apple have forced to have folks go complete the transaction elsewhere already.

All that's needed here is good messaging.

How the browser works is how it should be on computing devices.
Apple Pay should get in the mix here and compete on terms and perhaps win customers for its integrated offering!

Compete!
Competition is what's needed here.

 

[surferfb]

I agree that Apple's original message was, while factually accurate, over the top and "scary."

I do think the EU deserves some blame here though. Assuming the reporting is correct and Apple reached out to them nine months ago and were told "hold off on implementing that change" - it certainly gives the appearance that at best the EU is not up to the task of effectively enforcing the DMA, and at worst they WANTED Apple out of compliance so they could fine them.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Apps linking out from inside the App is new, and goes against how things have worked for 17 years

I’ve entered/added my debit cards to the Uber app years ago - and payments have been made.
In the Uber app. Without Apple needing to get involved or charge commission.
Same as for my local transit/train operating company’s app.
I’ve even paid import duties to the customs administration with a credit card in-app.

👉 The concept of entering payment details and making payment transactions in apps is anything but “foreign” or new.

Linking outside of apps is an even greater “disruption” in the user experience and makes it even more clear to the user that Apple isn’t involved. In fact, I’d argue no additional “scare screen” is necessary.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I do think the EU deserves some blame here though. Assuming the reporting is correct and Apple reached out to them nine months ago and were told "hold off on implementing that change" - it certainly gives the appearance that at best the EU is not up to the task of effectively enforcing the DMA, and at worst they WANTED Apple out of compliance so they could fine them.

Sounds like they were waiting on dev feedback?
I'm also unclear on that angle and would like to know more.

 

[H2SO4]

Actually Apple backs it. If there's a security breach, Apple will be responsible and will compensate users if Apple fails to protect the user.


"Honest" is new.
"It uses external purchases." does not make any mention of whether or not it's secure. That's honest.

You goggles might be making you miss the point.

 

[ofarlig]

OK but something that’s also completely factual could exclude the “private” and “secure” language. If all it said was ‘You will be redirected to the browser to complete purchase’ that would be completely factual too.

I haven’t read the entire ruling by the judge but as far as I know it said nothing about who can and cannot be in the App Store. What is stopping Apple from implementing a policy that if an app chooses to link out for payment they have to provide information on what payment system is being used and if Apple is concerned the payment system is shady they can chose not to approve the app update. So the app can either use Apple’s IAP or get taken off the store. And maybe this just applies to smaller developers. This of course is presuming there are all these apps on the App Store who would stop using Apple’s IAP in favor of some shady payment platform. I don’t believe that to be true. I’d also be curious to know more about all these shady payment platforms. Is that even really a thing?

I would say omitting at least the secure part would be a disservice to the consumer as that hides what the problem is.

Far as I know the EU wants the developer to have complete freedom over what payment providers they use, so I wonder if Apple would be allowed to block apps because they use a specific payment solution.

A solution that was suggested by another poster could be a toggle us users can use that hides apps not using Apples payment system.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I would say omitting at least the secure part would be a disservice to the consumer as that hides what the problem is.

Far as I know the EU wants the developer to have complete freedom over what payment providers they use, so I wonder if Apple would be allowed to block apps because they use a specific payment solution.

A solution that was suggested by another poster could be a toggle us users can use that hides apps not using Apples payment system.

Perhaps Apple needs to think about a “secure mode” for iPhones and a more open mode for those of us that choose that and prefer it.

I’m a very experienced user and would prefer my handheld Apple device to behave like my desktop Apple device and have as few limitations as possible.

I fully recognize that may not be appropriate for everybody, but I would like to have the option.

 

[surferfb]

Perhaps Apple needs to think about a “secure mode” for iPhones and a more open mode for those of us that choose that and prefer it.

I’m a very experienced user and would prefer my handheld Apple device to behave like my desktop Apple device and have as few limitations as possible.

I fully recognize that may not be appropriate for everybody, but I would like to have the option.

I actually think this is a reasonable compromise, which is why neither side would ever go for it 🤣

 

[turbineseaplane]

I actually think this is a reasonable compromise, which is why neither side would ever go for it 🤣

I’d probably even be OK if they only allow it on “pro devices” … thus allowing them to front load a little revenue in exchange for the ability.

 

[ofarlig]

Perhaps Apple needs to think about a “secure mode” for iPhones and a more open mode for those of us that choose that and prefer it.

I’m a very experienced user and would prefer my handheld Apple device to behave like my desktop Apple device and have as few limitations as possible.

I fully recognize that may not be appropriate for everybody, but I would like to have the option.

I am kind of on the fence on this, on one hand I am an experienced user as well and can navigate the space safely. On the other hand I have elderly relatives that we get iPhones so they are more safe for them to use.

But it’s also the fact that I think the cluster**** that will come from apps being in different app stores, subscriptions not being centrally managed and such isn’t desirable for me. It’s similar situations what been making me return to iOS every time I go to Android for a while.

I can understand Apple because if they are forced into the same fragmented chaos one negative with Android disappears.

 

[turbineseaplane]

But it’s also the fact that I think the cluster**** that will come from apps being in different app stores, subscriptions not being centrally managed and such isn’t desirable for me.

I just really don’t understand how this is such a big deal for folks.

Our entire lives are filled with different vectors of concern in terms of bills and responsibilities.

It just honestly feels like making a mountain out of a molehill.

It causes me exactly 0 issues on my Mac.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Assuming the reporting is correct and Apple reached out to them nine months ago and were told "hold off on implementing that change

There’s little reason to assume it’s correct (let alone the full truth).

Given how

• it’s only Apple’s word and claims
• Apple has been found guilty of lying in antitrust proceedings in a court of law
• misrepresenting changes (such as the design of the Apo Store disclosure you linked to earlier) on their website that got - and still are - implemented differently in the App Store, while obviously lacking neutral design and language, intending to discourage users from availing themselves of the choices allowed.

…and their obstinate refusals to comply in good faith, that should in fsct be the default assumption.

 

[turbineseaplane]

But it’s also the fact that I think the cluster**** that will come from apps being in different app stores, subscriptions not being centrally managed and such isn’t desirable for me.

It really isn't a big deal.

You just have Devs operating in the iOS App Store be required to offer IAP & any other payment solutions they'd like and only expose the other methods through Pro mode.

If a user decides to enable Pro mode for Dev direct pricing and offers, great!
They obviously know what they are doing and are ok with it.

Folks who don't feel comfortable with that will pay a premium to Apple in non-Pro mode for that experience.

All good, right?

 

[AppliedMicro]

But it’s also the fact that I think the cluster**** that will come from apps being in different app stores, subscriptions not being centrally managed and such isn’t desirable for me

It’s up to Apple to provide pricing that’s attractive to developers for payment processing.
Given how they’re controlling the operating system and most popular store, they can surely demand a premium over the competition.

I just really don’t understand how this is such a big deal for folks.

It’s obviously a big deal for Apple - cause they know that their in-app purchasing system is not competitively priced.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It’s obviously a big deal for Apple - cause they know that their in-app purchasing system is not competitively priced.

They've known it for SO long too.

I mean, at the minimum, Apple should have on their own gone down to a much more reasonable 15% across the board, with no caveats, for everything a long long time ago.

 

[ofarlig]

I just really don’t understand how this is such a big deal for folks.

Our entire lives are filled with different vectors of concern in terms of bills and responsibilities.

It just honestly feels like making a mountain out of a molehill.

It causes me exactly 0 issues on my Mac.

It is part being secured and easily able to cancel, today scam subscriptions are decently prevalent. You think it’s a one time purchase of $5 but the fine print reads that it’s a $50 weekly draw and you need to jump through hoops to cancel (like sending a physical letter).

It’s also the convenience of not having to use multiple stores to download or update your apps. Had that problem on Android a couple of times where I thought I had the latest available version and still couldn’t get it to work which turned out to be that the particular app was installed from a different store.