Apple Updates U.S. App Review Guidelines Following Epic Games Ruling

[neuropsychguy]

They will not.

Apple ALREADY charges as much as they think people will pay. Every price increase loses customers.

Maybe you can predict the future but I can't, which why my statement was a probability with built in uncertainty.

I wasn't saying that I think Apple should raise hardware or services prices, just that it's likely if this turns into a significant drop in revenue and profit margins. I'm not sure what's controversial about acknowledging that's a possibility.

 

[playtech1]

I hope that the reason Apple is being so intransigent is that it realises it will soon have some competition for its iOS app store and so is working hard to upgrade it with new features, like wishlists, better reviews, search, better discoverability, etc., as well as trimming its fees to a level to entice developers.

However, I fear that Apple is in fact burying its head in the sand and trying to extract as much money as possible for as long as possible while spending as little as possible in preparing to compete.

 

[SactoGuy18]

I hope that the reason Apple is being so intransigent is that it realises it will soon have some competition for its iOS app store and so is working hard to upgrade it with new features, like wishlists, better reviews, search, better discoverability, etc., as well as trimming its fees to a level to entice developers.

However, I fear that Apple is in fact burying its head in the sand and trying to extract as much money as possible for as long as possible while spending as little as possible in preparing to compete.

I think this ruling may result in the App Store app being able to accommodate multiple app stores, up to six per iOS/iPadOS device. For example, besides the Apple App Store, we could have App Stores for publishers and other app manufacturers.

 

[HighwaySnowman]

Maybe you can predict the future but I can't, which why my statement was a probability with built in uncertainty.

I wasn't saying that I think Apple should raise hardware or services prices, just that it's likely if this turns into a significant drop in revenue and profit margins. I'm not sure what's controversial about acknowledging that's a possibility.

I'm saying that Apple already charges as much as the market will bear.

If they thought they could raise prices and not lose so many sales that they'd make less money, they'd already have done it.

 

[tubedogg]

I hope that the reason Apple is being so intransigent is that it realises it will soon have some competition for its iOS app store and so is working hard to upgrade it with new features, like wishlists, better reviews, search, better discoverability, etc., as well as trimming its fees to a level to entice developers.

However, I fear that Apple is in fact burying its head in the sand and trying to extract as much money as possible for as long as possible while spending as little as possible in preparing to compete.

The only place Apple has competition for the App Store itself is in Europe. That has not changed in the US (or any other country or territory). That said, Tim and his finance team have already shown themselves to be unable to proactively do anything, so I don’t believe they are preparing for anything other an appeal of the ruling in discussion here (which is solely about linking out of an app and communication to users).

I think this ruling may result in the App Store app being able to accommodate multiple app stores, up to six per iOS/iPadOS device. For example, besides the Apple App Store, we could have App Stores for publishers and other app manufacturers.

This ruling will result in no such thing. It has literally nothing to do with alternate app installation methods/stores. Those are parts of the lawsuit that Sweeney lost. (Also, even if that wasn’t the case, why would there be a limit? And why would it be six? That doesn’t make any sense.)

 

[tubedogg]

Steve Wozniak would like a word with you.

(Jobs invented nothing, he just took credit.)

For the record I didn’t say bupkis about inventing anything. I was discussing who was responsible for Apple’s growth.

Woz’s innovations were absolutely primarily responsible for the first rise of Apple. Granted. However, when Jobs returned, they had been circling the bankruptcy drain. And he was absolutely responsible for the second rise of Apple.

(Also, semantics, but to claim he never invented anything is to ignore his pivotal role in the products introduced during his second reign.)

And the argument could be made in both cases that, without Jobs as (at minimum) the showman, Apple did not experience the explosive growth in either rise. Though in the case of the first one at least, it would still have probably been a name, just maybe not as popular. The second one, though… it is extraordinarily unlikely they would have survived as a going concern long enough to experience a second rise.

 

[vantelimus]

They will not.

Apple ALREADY charges as much as they think people will pay. Every price increase loses customers.

Since you make an assertion without data, I'll respond in like kind. The prices of the mid-level options on Apple products are inelastic. Small price changes will not lose many customers. Consumers will chalk it up to inflation and US trade wars. Competitors will adopt Apple's price changes.

 

[WB2Colorado]

Even if Apple is ultimately successful on appeal, you can't put this genie back in the bottle. I think if they try you're going to see a lot of big developers like Spotify and Netflix pull their apps from the App Store in protest. The App Store is never going to be the same and I'm sure Apple knew that, that's why they dragged their feet for so long to get here.

 

[Letrix]

Can’t wait for parents to not know how to cancel subscriptions on these out of bounds websites and try and blame Apple.

Great publicity for Rocket Money

 

[Jumpthesnark]

Apple is so ridiculous by just applying these changes in US… that just shows how butthurt they are. Why don’t apply globally? Same with the EU DMA changes. It’s not like all customers would profit from it…

Because Apple is reacting to a legal decision that only applies in the U.S. So until they have to do the same thing elsewhere, they won't.

 

[jz0309]

Because Apple is reacting to a legal decision that only applies in the U.S. So until they have to do the same thing elsewhere, they won't.

in addition, Apple has stated that they disagree with the verdict, so if they were to apply those new rules globally, that would reduce their chances of appeal to basically zero as it would indicate that they admit being "guilty"

 

[kevinj85]

This is a temporary setback for Apple. They have already confirmed they will appeal, and they are going to throw everything at this terrible decision - a decision threatens the very existence of one of Americas greatest corporations of all-time, and risks costing consumers billions through fraud and misleading sales techniques.

I think you’re being sarcastic but I can’t actually tell.

 

[ctyrider]

So, hear me out. In theory Apple can now lose 100% of its App Store revenue, because this can go beyond just subscriptions. What stops a developer who now charges $14.95 for their app in the App Store .. replace it with free shell app where all functionality is disabled.. and one time $14.95 lifetime subscription is required via out-of-app payment. Every app in App Store is free and Apple profit stream is down to zero. What would this not happen?

 

[bradriley]

I had hoped we wouldn't need a discussion about the differences between a president and a district court judge...

If you haven’t read the news lately, the sitting president seems to think there isn’t a difference!

 

[HighwaySnowman]

So, hear me out. In theory Apple can now lose 100% of its App Store revenue, because this can go beyond just subscriptions. What stops a developer who now charges $14.95 for their app in the App Store .. replace it with free shell app where all functionality is disabled.. and one time $14.95 lifetime subscription is required via out-of-app payment. Every app in App Store is free and Apple profit stream is down to zero. What would this not happen?

That would be BEAUTIFUL!

I'd absolutely LOVE for Apple's stupid app store to cost them money. I'd love for it to cost them enough that they shut it down and we all go back to normal software installation.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

That would be BEAUTIFUL!

I'd absolutely LOVE for Apple's stupid app store to cost them money. I'd love for it to cost them enough that they shut it down and we all go back to normal software.

Radicalism attracts radicalism. I disagree.

I think no regular customer ever understood why can’t both coexist. The justification around security never really stick considering the main financial beneficiary of such measures.

Now convenience, that is a strong argument. But that alone can just take you as far. Because it’s has been proven convenience is not the only value people appreciate.

Take for instance macOS. If convenience was king in users minds, the App Store in macOS would be relatively as successfull. As a result at the moment innovation has shifted from iOS to macOS and Windows. You heard me. Heck, innovation has once again shifted to the web, while Siri wall garden has been stuck almost since inception.

If this ruling sticks I wonder if Apple will keep interest in making iPad OS a replacement of macOS yet in many many ways inferior. I mean, considering that the main reason is in creating a financial fiefdom on people’s desks and laps that looks to be a possibility that is further away.

 

[jumpcutking]

With in app purchases opening up, I’m wondering how many app developers will forgo migrating from Apple because of having to recode apps, adaption, testing etc…

Kind of thinking it’s a good idea for many app developers to consider alternate platforms for that boost in margins. I mean nothing is getting cheaper.

Also a reason why I’m considering entering the market… just let me dream. 😂

 

[davide_eu]

Nah. I know what it means, and ensh.ittification is primarily a UX problem, IMO.

The App Store is straightforward experience. You click an app, you double-click the side button, and you’re on your way.

You can bet you bippy that all of these alternate stores will try every flippin’ thing to funk up the process to confuse and increase sales.

Two things can be true:

Apple takes far too much of a share of the proceeds AND they have a quality app acquiring process with minimal fuss.

Before the "app" it was even easier... You jump directly on the home banking web or the weather forecast. No reason to have an "app for everything". job brought users in the past, not in the future. In the past, at the beginning of Internet, you needed a X11 software to start interacting with many services and the web was the freedom...

 

[davide_eu]

With in app purchases opening up, I’m wondering how many app developers will forgo migrating from Apple because of having to recode apps, adaption, testing etc…

Kind of thinking it’s a good idea for many app developers to consider alternate platforms for that boost in margins. I mean nothing is getting cheaper.

Also a reason why I’m considering entering the market… just let me dream. 😂

They can keep both!

 

[kolebee]

This is a temporary setback for Apple. They have already confirmed they will appeal, and they are going to throw everything at this terrible decision - a decision threatens the very existence of one of Americas greatest corporations of all-time, and risks costing consumers billions through fraud and misleading sales techniques.

This sounds kind of satirical. Setback? They got referred for criminal prosecution.

Anything can happen with appeals, and it might even be more likely than not that ultimately Apple wins back a few of these requirements, but it's not a minor thing that they've been ignoring court orders and lying in testimony.

 

[SomnambulantSurgeon]

Good changes in my opinion. I still hope that someday they are forced to allow third party browser rendering engines since they literally are holding the Internet back since they don't allow them.

Arguably not.

Browser engines filled the world of the PC and yet we ended up with a situation where the world was held back because of a winner. An open platform can be defeated by backroom deals. I don't mind that IOS is unambiguous this way.

 

[jdawgnoonan]

Arguably not.

Browser engines filled the world of the PC and yet we ended up with a situation where the world was held back because of a winner. An open platform can be defeated by backroom deals. I don't mind that IOS is unambiguous this way.

Apple, in my opinion, is strategically preventing web applications from competing with their App Store based model. Also, as a person who works with web sites professionally, my iPad Pro is a lot less “Pro” than it should be due to only having one rendering engine.

 

[jumpcutking]

They can keep both!

Yes! I think this just pushes up the competition of IAP. Which could give us newer and better innovations.

 

[I7guy]

The only place Apple has competition for the App Store itself is in Europe. That has not changed in the US (or any other country or territory). That said, Tim and his finance team have already shown themselves to be unable to proactively do anything, so I don’t believe they are preparing for anything other an appeal of the ruling in discussion here (which is solely about linking out of an app and communication to users).

The above is conjecture about what apple prepares for or not. They are exceedingly good at planning and execution. And competition should be in quotes. Mandating completion through regulation is not competition. It’s playing Robin Hood.

This ruling will result in no such thing. It has literally nothing to do with alternate app installation methods/stores. Those are parts of the lawsuit that Sweeney lost. (Also, even if that wasn’t the case, why would there be a limit? And why would it be six? That doesn’t make any sense.)

 

[I7guy]

Yes! I think this just pushes up the competition of IAP. Which could give us newer and better innovations.

The ruling has to prevail with Apple losing much or all of the appeal. And, the only “innovation” is to cut apples commission to $0.