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

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
67,939
38,645


Apple today announced it has updated its App Store Review Guidelines with three key changes related to outside-of-app communications, collecting contact information within an app, and in-app events featured in the App Store.

app-store-blue-banner.jpg

In late August, Apple announced it had reached a $100 million settlement that, pending court approval, would resolve a class action lawsuit from U.S. developers who alleged that Apple has a monopoly on the distribution of iOS apps and in-app purchases.

As part of the settlement, Apple said it would clarify that developers can use communications, such as email, to share information about payment methods outside of their iOS app, and this is now reflected in the updated App Store Review Guidelines.

Specifically, Apple removed the following sentence from section 3.1.3 of the guidelines:
Developers cannot use information obtained within the app to target individual users outside of the app to use purchasing methods other than in-app purchase (such as sending an individual user an email about other purchasing methods after that individual signs up for an account within the app).
Second, a new guideline under section 5.1.1 (x) indicates that apps may request basic contact information, such as a name and email address, so long as the request is optional for the user, features and services are not conditional on providing the information, and it complies with all other provisions of the guidelines.

Third, Apple has added guideline 2.3.13 to provide clarifications around the requirements for developers to feature in-app events in the App Store. In-app events can highlight in-game competitions, movie premieres, livestream experiences, fitness challenges, and more, and they will start appearing in the ‌App Store‌ on devices running ‌iOS 15‌ and ‌iPadOS 15‌ on October 27. The full text of the guideline is below.
In-app events are timely events that happen within your app. To feature your event on the App Store, it must fall within an event type provided in App Store Connect. All event metadata must be accurate and pertain to the event itself, rather than the app more generally. Events must happen at the times and dates you select in App Store Connect, including across multiple storefronts. You may monetize your event so long as you follow the rules set forth in Section 3 on Business. And your event deep link must direct users to the proper destination within your app. Read In-App Events for detailed guidance on acceptable event metadata and event deep links.
The updated App Store Review Guidelines can be found on Apple's website.

Article Link: Apple Updates App Store Guidelines as Part of Agreement With U.S. Developers
 
Last edited:
If Google was smart, they would "immediately" drop their cut to 7.5% Across the Board for ALL transactions !

If I was running Google, that's precisely what I would do !

If they think it through (Pros vs Cons), I'm confident they would do it !

Everything else that Google, OR Apple, does, OR attempts to do, is just a short-term bandaid.

7.5% Across the Board for ALL transactions cuts to the chase, & will Head Off (the Regulators) @ the Pass !

BTW, I hope that $100M settlement that Apple cut with the lawyer representing that group, gets thrown-out (by the Judge).

The "Auto Opt-In" Clause should never have been included !

That's a violation of my rights as a U.S. citizen !

I did NOT participate in that Settlement.

I cannot be automatically included in it as if I had !

If the Judge approves it, I hope Cook will be forced to testify before Congress regarding the Settlement !
 
Your replies on all threads is quite frankly embarrassing. Do you not have anything better to do?
I suggest anyone looking to reply to this guys comments just ignore them....seriously just look at his/her history!
There is actually a site policy that describes these:
  1. Trolling. Posts that appear to be designed to cause argument or irritate rather than contribute to a constructive discussion are considered trolling and will be treated as such.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: LeadingHeat
Second, a new guideline under section 5.1.1 (x) indicates that apps may request basic contact information, such as a name and email address, so long as the request is optional for the user,
This right here is the key. As long as it’s optional. I don’t want apps to force me to use their [possibly] insecure payment system when I can conveniently and securely use apple’s in app payment method.
 
This is not a win for consumers. Consumers have already voted with their dollars, making Apple the most successful company on earth & for good reason. This is all about shifting money around, mega developers like Epic may benefit, but it will cost consumers even more in the long run.
 
This right here is the key. As long as it’s optional. I don’t want apps to force me to use their [possibly] insecure payment system when I can conveniently and securely use apple’s in app payment method.
And I don't want to give them my e-mail address either if I don't see it is useful for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeadingHeat
"section 5.1.1 (x) indicates that apps may request basic contact information, such as a name and email address, so long as the request is optional for the user, features and services are not conditional on providing the information"

Won't this affect apps that use an email address and password for user login? Plenty of apps use email/password to identify a user, and without a user identifying themselves some (usually most) functions are unavailable. So an email address in this case is required to provide services...
 
the courts need to keep on going. split up apple.

There's (quite) some truth in your comment.
Bigger is not always better.
Apple isn't even the worst one, Amazon sells about everything you can wish for, too much power for 1 company if you ask me, and there are quite a few of those.
There is no coercion involved in buying products from Amazon or apple. Splitting apple up, for those who really believe it, might end up with products people aren’t interested in. Apple would be the new blackberry.
 
Apple is such a well-resourced company and its coffers as so deep that I think it should cut its own percentage of commission. And/or, consider whether the developer is a small company and have tiered commission. I can see charging companies like Adobe a 30% commission, but not for small companies nor for independent developers.
 
Apple is such a well-resourced company and its coffers as so deep that I think it should cut its own percentage of commission. And/or, consider whether the developer is a small company and have tiered commission. I can see charging companies like Adobe a 30% commission, but not for small companies nor for independent developers.
There already is a small business program where apple has cut its commission.

Alas, I really want that Bugatti, maybe they’ll cut their commissions also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: msackey
There already is a small business program where apple has cut its commission.

Alas, I really want that Bugatti, maybe they’ll cut their commissions also.
Good that Apple has this small business program.

I think there's a way to view the App store, rather than a profit-making business venture for Apple, it could see it as a supportive system to build and continue to strengthen its ecosystem. With the latter view, the importance of commission is much less and perhaps just making a percentage enough to sustain supporting running the app store, or even using the rest of the ecosystem to subsidize the app store.

Yeah, so I don't see the connection between a view of reducing the app store commission and your example that uses an expensive product in which one hopes to buy and hopes through reduction of commission that that expensive product becomes affordable. The two are not analogous.
 
Good that Apple has this small business program.

I think there's a way to view the App store, rather than a profit-making business venture for Apple, it could see it as a supportive system to build and continue to strengthen its ecosystem. With the latter view, the importance of commission is much less and perhaps just making a percentage enough to sustain supporting running the app store, or even using the rest of the ecosystem to subsidize the app store.

Yeah, so I don't see the connection between a view of reducing the app store commission and your example that uses an expensive product in which one hopes to buy and hopes through reduction of commission that that expensive product becomes affordable. The two are not analogous.
You started the post with this:
Apple is such a well-resourced company and its coffers as so deep that I think it sh

That suggests to me apple should cut the commission because it’s a rich company. So I made a parallel.

The App Store hasn’t changed much (yeah things here and there) since 2008 when it was an adjunct to the ecosystem. It just so happens it grew fairly well. And charges a standard fee/commission.

I think apple started the ball rolling and google was forced to lower its fees.

But apple is not obligated to make less money just because it’s rich. Just my $.02 and I know it’s not work even that.
 
Allowing devs to use suggest payment methods is something I am unlikely to use, but it's nice to have the option. Support that.

Allowing /any/ sort of data mining to do so is a no-go.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.