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

Nonetheless, the guidelines were still supposedly broken because...

So, it's the fact WP offers the subscriptions on their website at all, then it must be included in the app. However, I feel, it should be like the "reader" apps, especially because as one (Verge) commenter stated, the WP app is really meant to be used after a site is already set up, not to build one or choose related options.

Additionally, I don't see Apple's stance on “allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site.” when reading sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, especially because 3.1.1. begins "If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions," but perhaps it's just in a different section. Maybe some description rewrites are in need.

Apple rejected, then apparently accepted. The rejection was supposedly an error.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacCheetah3
People hate change. We want it done the same as everyone does just because it's on the internet

should we all go after countries because they have different rules than us too.?
 
the guy from wordpress tweeted the exact communications with apple. So, yes, the article was wrong. There was a link in the help pages to ”buy domain” page on wordpress’ website. They were told that, pursuant to written policy, if they direct users to purchase digital goods outside the app then they must also allow IAP. They removed the link to the website, so they are now in compliance. That’s what the actual communications show that happened.

The issue was fixed before Apple decided to force in app payment upon WP. It might be lack of Apple internal communication. Yet, this happened before, companies within the rules yet letters being sent requiring this feature to be enabled.

We act as if this digital marketplace is new.

Yes. There are some people here that take this as an Apple only thing.

But it is not. Let's admit that Apple is allowed to proceed with this predatory practice after digital businesses value and revenue, because at 15%-30% considering the underlying services ... is what it is. What's to stop than MS or doing this? All in the sudden the idea of a free Digital Market is ... What's next? Then we have these digital moguls making agreements with each other to allow for concessions between them form their services, like Apple is doing with Amazon. Of course rules are the same for everyone, you just need to become one of them ...

It's seams to me people are taking this as a Tribal matter when it is not. If small businesses think this has nothing to do with them ... think twice. This practice dips deeply into the value they deliver to their customer for a simple matter of hosting, installing and updating an app ... give me 30% or go somewhere else ... but where if my customers bought you the devices? You cannot even put a link on Your App for opening a Web Page for that purpose ... even if you side by side put Apple Pay/Payment.

One cannot say this is ok for Apple, but not Ok for Google, Microsoft or Amazon. If digital business services, big or small don't want this you better be prepared to actually have a look at this properly the precedence this opens is huge!!!!. At the moment its kind of in a limbo, but once a decision is made ... its made for everyone. This should be regulated no? Apple uses all sorts of fallacies, comparing with XBOX One ... this are special purpose devices with a very defined scope ... now smartphones, PCs, Tablet ... this are core devices that everyone needs to use fo everything in the modern age, from ordering Pizza to Education (yes, Apple is taxing digital only education through iOS).

People are dazzled about the App Store revenue, but if you look at the Policy and the market share of iOS its very much a consequence. Oh Google Play does less ... well in Android there are multiple App Stores. If you buy a Samsung, number #1 smart phone sales, I think at least you have two App Store and your service (Galaxy Apps and Google Play), not to mention side loading. If you want to look at the effects of this Policy in iOS compare with macOS adjusting the value with their respective market share.

Anyway soon, you will be Apple will probably unify iOS and macOS stores and use the same tactic for macOS, just wait for macOS on ARM. Of course developers will be able to side load whatever ... provided you have a developer account ... much like the iOS. If Apple can do that for iOS for sure macOS ... Windows and Google will follow. Its an amazing Cornucopia of revenue!

As a customer and professional using Apple devices, honestly I feel that instead they should fix the stupid bird processes that is killing my MacBook Pro 16", not to mention the power draw when connected with external monitors. This is not good. Meanwhile I'm waiting for my iMac 27" 2020 almost maxed. I'm spending thousands on their tech to get the best tech, not for this revenue dipping practices.
 
Last edited:
Additionally, I don't see Apple's stance on “allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site.” when reading sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, ...

Basically that section allowes Apple to do whatever regarding enforcing in-app payments. Only reader apps are exempt if classified as such. But what are reader apps? Reader apps by example?

AirBnB created ClassPass, that gives users access to tutorials and classes. Apple required in-app payments. No one knows precisely what a reader App is.


You guys need to put this in your heads. The end game of Apple is to collect the 30% revenue. Rules are there so that businesses have some kind of guidelines, speeds the process ... but still it does not mean that the App will pass. So arguing that Apple is right because X or Y violated some rule Z or W and the dev is in the wrong is moot. It might depend on unwritten factors also!!!! Its a guideline NOT A BOOK OF RULES, at least that is what the practice seams to indicate.

You can see this happening in the news because this guys are BIG, BIG, BIG. But you if you are a shrimp, no way you make the news. Follow and shut up.

Now you may argue that Apple can do this because of whatever. But if they can so can anyone else, because they could not before (check MS anti-trust case). So if anyone else can do this, MS, Google, Amazon ... digital businesses take care!

Digital businesses will be in a position of constantly betting against themselves just for the ability to install their app on their customers devices!!!!!
 
Last edited:
....
Yes. There are some people here that take this as an Apple only thing.

But it is not. Let's admit that Apple is allowed to proceed with this predatory practice after digital businesses value and revenue, because at 15%-30% considering the underlying services ... is what it is. What's to stop than MS or doing this? All in the sudden the idea of a free Digital Market is ... What's next? Then we have these digital moguls making agreements with each other to allow for concessions between them form their services, like Apple is doing with Amazon. Of course rules are the same for everyone, you just need to become one of them ...

It's seams to me people are taking this as a Tribal matter when it is not. If small businesses think this has nothing to do with them ... think twice. This practice dips deeply into the value they deliver to their customer for a simple matter of hosting, installing and updating an app ... give me 30% or go somewhere else ... but where if my customers bought you the devices? You cannot even put a link on Your App for opening a Web Page for that purpose ... even if you side by side put Apple Pay/Payment.

One cannot say this is ok for Apple, but not Ok for Google, Microsoft or Amazon. If digital business services, big or small don't want this you better be prepared to actually have a look at this properly the precedence this opens is huge!!!!. At the moment its kind of in a limbo, but once a decision is made ... its made for everyone. This should be regulated no? Apple uses all sorts of fallacies, comparing with XBOX One ... this are special purpose devices with a very defined scope ... now smartphones, PCs, Tablet ... this are core devices that everyone needs to use fo everything in the modern age, from ordering Pizza to Education (yes, Apple is taxing digital only education through iOS).

People are dazzled about the App Store revenue, but if you look at the Policy and the market share of iOS its very much a consequence. Oh Google Play does less ... well in Android there are multiple App Stores. If you buy a Samsung, number #1 smart phone sales, I think at least you have two App Store and your service (Galaxy Apps and Google Play), not to mention side loading. If you want to look at the effects of this Policy in iOS compare with macOS adjusting the value with their respective market share.

Anyway soon, you will be Apple will probably unify iOS and macOS stores and use the same tactic for macOS, just wait for macOS on ARM. Of course developers will be able to side load whatever ... provided you have a developer account ... much like the iOS. If Apple can do that for iOS for sure macOS ... Windows and Google will follow. Its an amazing Cornucopia of revenue!

As a customer and professional using Apple devices, honestly I feel that instead they should fix the stupid bird processes that is killing my MacBook Pro 16", not to mention the power draw when connected with external monitors. This is not good. Meanwhile I'm waiting for my iMac 27" 2020 almost maxed. I'm spending thousands on their tech to get the best tech, not for this revenue dipping practices.
To start with, sure Apple should fix whatever issues you are having on your mac. Totally agree and that has nothing to do with this debate.

>well in Android there are multiple App Stores

Okay, we've established there is not a monopoly in app stores.

>Let's admit that Apple is allowed to proceed with this predatory practice

Let's admit if one wants to enter into a voluntary agreement with Apple, they have taken app store fees into account. Therefore there is no predatory practice as the above point gives a dev multiple development options.

> Apple uses all sorts of fallacies, comparing with XBOX One ...

Except they pay billions of dollars in legal fees and for that money, one would hope they are getting sound legal advice and not engaging in fallacious arguments, but setting up a legal case.

> You cannot even put a link on Your App for opening a Web Page for that purpose ... even if you side by side put Apple Pay/Payment.

Rules are rules right? First off, I believe unless you are a dev one has no skin the game, I'm an ex-dev. But you voluntarily signed up to be a part of this program, don't like the rules...go somewhere else.

>This should be regulated no?

What should be regulated? Why not regulate the price of Ferrari's or Rolex's? A can or corn in the supermarket? It seems anybody can say everything should be regulated, when there is no harm to the consumer.
 
Basically that section allowes Apple to do whatever regarding enforcing in-app payments. Only reader apps are exempt if classified as such. But what are reader apps? Reader apps by example?

AirBnB created ClassPass, that gives users access to tutorials and classes. Apple required in-app payments. No one knows precisely what a reader App is.


You guys need to put this in your heads. The end game of Apple is to collect the 30% revenue. Rules are there so that businesses have some kind of guidelines, speeds the process ... but still it does not mean that the App will pass. So arguing that Apple is right because X or Y violated some rule Z or W and the dev is in the wrong is moot. It might depend on unwritten factors also!!!! Its a guideline NOT A BOOK OF RULES, at least that is what the practice seams to indicate.

You can see this happening in the news because this guys are BIG, BIG, BIG. But you if you are a shrimp, no way you make the news. Follow and shut up.

Now you may argue that Apple can do this because of whatever. But if they can so can anyone else, because they could not before (check MS anti-trust case). So if anyone else can do this, MS, Google, Amazon ... digital businesses take care!

Digital businesses will be in a position of constantly betting against themselves just for the ability to install their app on their customers devices!!!!!
Apple is protecting their interests. I don't blame them one bit based on what is going on now. People want to use apple's infrastructure for free, make money from apple without paying them a dime and side-step their processes. Can't blame Apple one bit.
 
Apple is protecting their interests. I don't blame them one bit based on what is going on now.

True. Don't blame them either.

People want to use apple's infrastructure for free, make money from apple without paying them a dime and side-step their processes. Can't blame Apple one bit.

Don't blame this ones either. They are protecting their interests as much as Apple.

There must be some kind of middle ground. At the moment there is none.

PS: If you want to counter argue with fallacies with me it's kind of a dumb move. I'm sure Apple is smarter than that.
 
...
There must be some kind of middle ground. At the moment there is none.
What is the problem that is trying to be solved:
- MR posters who are not devs object to the fee?
- MR posters and some others want alternative app stores?
- MR posters and some devs are making noise because they object to the IAP or the IAP of 30%?
- MR posters and some devs are making noise because they think the app store rules are a free form format?
- MR posters and some devs believe apple should altruisticly open up their infrastructure for the taking, so the devs have free reign?

I included MR posters, but they are really MR posters with no skin in the game.
 
@I7guy,

Mr.Apple shareholder, typical answer. When nothing works well as a counter argument, try to "insult" the intelligence of the opposition. A bunch of leachers not in the game ... supposedly. From here is downhill in reasoning.

Roger out.
 
You guys need to put this in your heads. The end game of Apple is to collect the 30% revenue.
Indeed. And it's not a legal issue. It's a business consideration akin to most, if not every, other instances. Will my idea/product/service generate enough revenue to overcome the known, anticipated expenses? Do I think these expenses are fair? How can I best offset or reduce my expenses? Are there better options -- for example, could/should I publish a Web app instead?
Rules are there so that businesses have some kind of guidelines, speeds the process ... but still it does not mean that the App will pass. So arguing that Apple is right because X or Y violated some rule Z or W and the dev is in the wrong is moot.
It might depend on unwritten factors also!!!! Its a guideline NOT A BOOK OF RULES, at least that is what the practice seams to indicate.
Basically that section allowes Apple to do whatever regarding enforcing in-app payments. Only reader apps are exempt if classified as such. But what are reader apps? Reader apps by example?
Unwritten rules are okay but they're only effective if common knowledge, e.g. etiquettes. After all of the discussed examples, it seems Apple's contract writers should revise those guidelines a bit for extra/updated clarity.
Now you may argue that Apple can do this because of whatever. But if they can so can anyone else, because they could not before (check MS anti-trust case). So if anyone else can do this, MS, Google, Amazon ... digital businesses take care!
Of course, they can. They can also implement a 50/50 revenue share, and maybe some developers/publishers will conclude it's acceptable. Although, most might say, "Apple is only taking 30-percent, so, of course, I'll use the App Store." It's the same concept/reason as to why I haven't purchased a Go Pro. Is it a premium "action cam" product? Probably, but not enough greater to justify the price difference for me, though clearly plenty of people think otherwise.

I don't expect a justice system to intervene unless there is something collaboratively devious, such as price-fixing, or truly monopolies, such as power companies.
 
I'm not an American lawyer, but on this side of the pond the courts hate (and generally refuse) ruling on hypotheticals ('if Epic does X could Apple do that').
No, they don't have to rule on hypotheticals. A judge could force Apple to say either "if Epic breaches the contract in this way then they can keep their developer license" or to say "if Epic breaches the contract in this way then Apple will remove their developer license". That's what a declaratory judgement means. You can force another company to put the cards on the table. Apple wouldn't be allowed to say "if you want to know what we'll do, you have to breach the contract".
 
While I *may* agree with you, Dumb people like me don't see the case for the distinction.
Let's change to Apple vs. Spotify. Apple Music comes preloaded on my iPhone and would like 9.99 /month for subscription. If I happen to prefer Tidal or Spotify better, sure I can DL for free, but of the 9.99 subscription to Spotify, they only receive 7.99, seems fishy to me... Sure Apple probably has Apple Music as a separate entity, i just want to see the funny math to see the app store is still getting 30%
Let's get an accountant in. There's one accountant responsible for Apple Music. The accountant will tell you on the negative side that Apple Music cost so much to develop, that it costs so much to run, so much for advertising, that it costs so much to pay for the music. On the positive side, there is $7.00 per month coming in from subscribers in the first year of subscription, and $8.50 per month coming in from older subscriptions.

And there is another accountant responsible for the App Store. That accountant will tell you on the negative side how much App Store cost to develop and to run, and on the other side how much money comes in, including $3.00 from Spotify and from Apple Music, going down to $1.50 after a year.
 
It just blows my mind that Apple was just brought in front of congress for these very reasons and they sit here and STILL defend them! It’s absolutely baffling.
Congress is not a court. Apple and others were in front of congress to explain things to them. And one of the congressmen apparently was just there to get tech support from either Google or Facebook :-(
 
Ok, sure, I can agree with you, let me ask this though... Particular to Fortnight, probably other games, there is this concept of CrossPlay functionality. We have our Epic account linked to a PC, Xbox, PS4, Switch and iPhone. (yes that is super pathetic any why should anyone have that many devices)
Point is, If i purchase items on a PC direct with Epic and they are available on all devices.
Theres a loop hole... Why should in app purchases then not go direct to the developer ?

If you purchase on a PC direct with Epic then according to the AppStore rules, Epic pays nothing to Apple. Even if the purchase is used exclusively on an iPhone or iPad. That's why it's called "in-app purchases".
 
@I7guy,

Mr.Apple shareholder, typical answer. When nothing works well as a counter argument, try to "insult" the intelligence of the opposition. A bunch of leachers not in the game ... supposedly. From here is downhill in reasoning.

Roger out.
Do you have any skin in this game, or are you debating for debating's sake? Seems like you're suggesting an apple shareholder has a biased opinion...same as for MR posters who were never devs.
 
Last edited:
o you have any skin in this game, or are you debating for debating's sake?

My arguments are mostly common sense. What do you mean Game?

Do you mean if I work in the IT industry for 40 years and have seen how it has evolved across 4 decades? Yes. Or do you mean if I’m an Entrepeneur which is also yes? Do you mean if I’m an Apple shareholder of Apple or any of the mentioned companies? Than no.

But most of all I got into tech because of the amazing possibilities for Men. I believe in the power of innovation, people doing Amazing. Apple in this aspect has plenty of history. Yet, I’m afraid that if their approach to the App economy was 3 decades ago by some other, there would be no Internet, no Apple.

That is fundamentally my stake in the game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
My arguments are mostly common sense. What do you mean Game?
Sometimes common sense and the rulings of/in the US judicial system do not align. By "game", refers to being a developer and having gone through the rigmarole of signing-up, developing the app, using the app store etc.
Do you mean if I work in the IT industry for 40 years and have seen how it has evolved across 4 decades? Yes. Or do you mean if I’m an Entrepeneur which is also yes? Do you mean if I’m an Apple shareholder of Apple or any of the mentioned companies? Than no.
Check, check and check.
But most of all I got into tech because of the amazing possibilities for Men. I believe in the power of innovation, people doing Amazing. Apple in this aspect has plenty of history. Yet, I’m afraid that if their approach to the App economy was 3 decades ago by some other, there would be no Internet, no Apple.
I disagree, the iphone fundamentally changed the landscape of smartphones. Plenty of innovation to be had. Part of the reason the iphone was successful was the app store concept, which others point out, apple "copied". That Epic wants to break out after a number of years of reaping the benefits is ironic. If anything the app store is enabling innovation, not stifling it.
That is fundamentally my stake in the game.
I'm all for innovation, the way Epic went about this does their customers a disservice.
 
I disagree, the iphone fundamentally changed the landscape of smartphones.

Fully agree. Amazing work. I think market has responded in accordance. Huge device sales volumes, huge profits ... from small to a trillion no? My choice has a customer and business has always been with Apple because I see all the stuff you mentioned. But I cannot stay with this one.

If you step a bit back In the same line we have the digital business landscape. There was, is and will be. Look at how the digital landscape is totally different from what it was. Now we are moving 5G, ISP tech ... Smart TVs everywhere, Huber, Amazon, the Music business landscape changed, remote everything ... many so much value also this collective brought to customer and should I say Apple it self. Without them iOS, Android, Windows, macOS would be just a bricks with some Apps from Apple.

Meaning that Apple is has much a part of it as all others. This is the way the world works. It does not work if everyone in the ”critical path“ demands 30% of others revenues. It would simply not work. Imagine cloud services providers ... give me 30% of your revenue ... with Apple that would 60% ... now what about ISP’s ... 90% ... what about platform you might use ... 120% ... Business this way would be crazy.

You are a developer correct? You know has much as I do that individually, App/File Hosting, Digital Payment & Billing ... does not cost anywhere near 30% of a companies revenue as far as market prices go for these kind of services. Yes, the App Store does a bit more, but what if some devs simply don’t need it? And the ones that do, why not pay it at marketing prices, convertion rates and leads? Currently if people come to the company site and the site has a link to the app in the App Store, a link from an article of google search ... pling $$$ 30% commission. Say through direct sale, meeting ... Heck the App Store didn’t even generated the lead man. Crazy.

I'm all for innovation, the way Epic went about this does their customers a disservice.

Well. Without thinking you are giving me some reason. Epic could either pay 30% commission or you are providing a disservice to your customers. So what are the actual options? Yes, they could have stayed and pay the 30% of their revenue and go judicial. tThey could have pulled and go judicial, I guess this would be disservice. They decided to stand this way. If you look at the options, none of them look that good Epic.

The fundamental matter is that Epic has its customers that “happen” to use iOS. It’s not so much that customer come to Epic due to the amazing App Store business accumen in selling Epic’s goods.

As a matter of disservice, what do you think about Apple stand on xCloud and Stadia? How much of that its a service to Apple customers? I mean, for sure some Apple customers are also XBOX customers right?

Hey. I think we just see things differently on the matter of the App Store policies. I’m not even against the concept of a single App Store, but I do think that they are dipping on someone else’s value with the 30%/15% commission along with enforcement of in-app payments unless the app is free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
Fully agree. Amazing work. I think market has responded in accordance. Huge device sales volumes, huge profits ... from small to a trillion no? My choice has a customer and business has always been with Apple because I see all the stuff you mentioned. But I cannot stay with this one.

If you step a bit back In the same line we have the digital business landscape. There was, is and will be. Look at how the digital landscape is totally different from what it was. Now we are moving 5G, ISP tech ... Smart TVs everywhere, Huber, Amazon, the Music business landscape changed, remote everything ... many so much value also this collective brought to customer and should I say Apple it self. Without them iOS, Android, Windows, macOS would be just a bricks with some Apps from Apple.

Meaning that Apple is has much a part of it as all others. This is the way the world works. It does not work if everyone in the ”critical path“ demands 30% of others revenues. It would simply not work. Imagine cloud services providers ... give me 30% of your revenue ... with Apple that would 60% ... now what about ISP’s ... 90% ... what about platform you might use ... 120% ... Business this way would be crazy.

You are a developer correct? You know has much as I do that individually, App/File Hosting, Digital Payment & Billing ... does not cost anywhere near 30% of a companies revenue as far as market prices go for these kind of services. Yes, the App Store does a bit more, but what if some devs simply don’t need it? And the ones that do, why not pay it at marketing prices, convertion rates and leads? Currently if people come to the company site and the site has a link to the app in the App Store, a link from an article of google search ... pling $$$ 30% commission. Say through direct sale, meeting ... Heck the App Store didn’t even generated the lead man. Crazy.
The fundamentals of the digital business hasn't changed much since Compuserve. What has changed is the tech surrounding it. Better, faster, more expansive, etc. And sure some of the better, faster, more expansive has enabled new capabilities and innovation within that space. But at the end, it still boils down a company selling goods, through some middleware layer to the ultimate consumer.

30% is Apple's business model. Whether that is successfully challenged in court we have yet to find out. But Apple has made a very lucrative business out of the App store. And the bottom line is everybody gets their fair share...it's a business decision if 30% is worth it.


Well. Without thinking you are giving me some reason. Epic could either pay 30% commission or you are providing a disservice to your customers. So what are the actual options? Yes, they could have stayed and pay the 30% of their revenue and go judicial. tThey could have pulled and go judicial, I guess this would be disservice. They decided to stand this way. If you look at the options, none of them look that good Epic.

The fundamental matter is that Epic has its customers that “happen” to use iOS. It’s not so much that customer come to Epic due to the amazing App Store business accumen in selling Epic’s goods.

As a matter of disservice, what do you think about Apple stand on xCloud and Stadia? How much of that its a service to Apple customers? I mean, for sure some Apple customers are also XBOX customers right?

Hey. I think we just see things differently on the matter of the App Store policies. I’m not even against the concept of a single App Store, but I do think that they are dipping on someone else’s value with the 30%/15% commission along with enforcement of in-app payments unless the app is free.
Without getting into what Apple did or didn't do, this part isn't about Apple. Even the judge agreed what Epic did was underhanded (in not so many words). Whether Apple will prevail with Epic International remains to be seen.
 
Funny, you state that you are not a lawyer, and yet you are arguing the law with an actual lawyer, admitted to the bar in California. Got it.

There are plenty of blow hard lawyers that spew garbage. I was never interested in hearing from them here. My point was hearing Apple enumerate the sectional violations of the developer agreement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PC_tech
Funny, you state that you are not a lawyer, and yet you are arguing the law with an actual lawyer, admitted to the bar in California. Got it.

Funny. The consensus of conventional wisdom concludes free legal advice, even from actual lawyers, is worth exactly what you pay for it: ZERO.

When "an actual lawyer" wastes time here prattling on about their worthless opinion, they only continue to deride their own value.
 
Again, from the Apple Developer Program License Agreement:

Section 11.2 specifies conditions under which Apple may terminate. The most relevant portions are:

11.2 Termination
This Agreement and all rights and licenses granted by Apple hereunder and any services provided hereunder will terminate, effective immediately upon notice from Apple:
(a) if You or any of Your Authorized Developers fail to comply with any term of this Agreement other than those set forth below in this Section 11.2 and fail to cure such breach within 30 days after becoming aware of or receiving notice of such breach;


I‘ll come back to (a) in a moment. Continuing:

...

(f) if You engage, or encourage others to engage, in any misleading, fraudulent, improper, unlawful or dishonest act relating to this Agreement, including, but not limited to, misrepresenting the nature of Your submitted Application (e.g., hiding or trying to hide functionality from Apple’s review, falsifying consumer reviews for Your Application, engaging in payment fraud, etc.).

So (f) is already cause enough for Apple to terminate. The ”pay in the app” functionality was clearly hidden from Apple’s review.

But we also have (a). So what are the terms of the Agreement that Epic had 30 days to cure? Those would include at least the following:

3.3 Program Requirements
Any Application that will be submitted to the App Store, Custom App Distribution, or TestFlight, or that will be distributed through Ad Hoc distribution, must be developed in compliance with the Documentation and the Program Requirements, the current set of which is set forth below in this Section 3.3. Libraries and Passes are subject to the same criteria


In other words, one of the things that can get you kicked out of the app store/developer program under 11.2 is if you are not compliant with the “Program requirements” (i.e. Apple’s App Store rules.). This is further elaborated on:

3.3.3 Without Apple’s prior written approval or as permitted under Section 3.3.25 (In-App Purchase API), an Application may not provide, unlock or enable additional features or functionality through distribution mechanisms other than the App Store, Custom App Distribution or TestFlight

Epic seems to have unlocked the “pay in the app” functionality using a mechanism other than the App Store. So 3.3.3 is an example of a 3.3 Program requirement that, by not being followed, may trigger 11.2(a)


Then there’s this:

6.1 Submission to Apple for App Store or Custom App Distribution
You may submit Your Application for consideration by Apple for distribution via the App Store or Custom App Distribution once You decide that Your Application has been adequately tested and is complete. By submitting Your Application, You represent and warrant that Your Application complies with the Documentation and Program Requirements then in effect as well as with any additional guidelines that Apple may post on the Program web portal or in App Store Connect.
You further agree that You will not attempt to hide, misrepresent or obscure any features, content, services or functionality in Your submitted Applications from Apple's review or otherwise hinder Apple from being able to fully review such Applications

Again, the in-app payment stuff was clearly hidden from review. So they seem to have violated 6.1, which under 11.2(a) let’s apple terminate them.
[automerge]1597899994[/automerge]

Because I can read? And nothing in the developer agreement requires Apple to state its reasons. The above is not an “opinion.” It’s actual quotes from the agreement.

You continue keyboard spray to hide the fact that you originally quoted sections of the App Guidelines document while referring to it as the developer agreement - which was blatantly incorrect.

Again, I was asking a specific question about why APPLE did not enumerate the specific sections of the DEVELOPER AGREEMENT that Epic violated. Such enumeration is a very common component of a legal demand letter.

I have ZERO interest in anyones else's opinion of which items they believed Epic violated, including yours.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.