As opposed to apple that creates kids and all kind of people addicted to a screen
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Court Rejects Apple's Emergency Motion to Pause App Store Rule Changes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But we’re not talking about 3rd party app stores. 🤷♀️
My sibling in Christ, Apple has rejected apps and updates for doing exactly this, per App Review Guidelines. With the exception of so-called "reader" apps, Apple forced developers with digital goods/services to use IAP and only IAP on iOS, until recent regulatory changes.
To clarify: Developers were always free to sell their digital goods/services elsewhere, of course, but if they did and Apple caught wind of it, they had to offer IAP on iOS. They used to also require that the IAP price be the same as (or less than!) elsewhere, but quickly dropped that requirement.
I see some traffic around Apple purporting to have removed the former requirement — that if you sell content outside your app it must also be sold with IAP within your app — shortly after subscriptions launched, but clearly some folks never got the memo, as it's been enforced at least sporadically long since then and even led to rejected appeals.
Last edited:
Nobody is forcing you to use outside payments.
I purposely purchased e-Book from bookstore and brought online via web browser. I know the book store may get some cut, that is fine for me.
I purposely not purchasing e-Books from iOS devices, because I know that Apple will take 30% cut and the book store also take the cut.
And guess what, buying e-Books from online store is cheaper than purchasing same book from iOS app.
Too bad the 9th Circuit said no to the emergency stay. Apple will have to get a different ruling or the costs to be a developer for Apple will go through the roof (making it impossible for small developers to compete). 😢
And not just Epic. Now, there's nothing stopping sketchy developers from sending people to random web sites for payments (that also steal personal data....)
Ultimately, it's not
Most of those fees go to pay for the benefits that the consumer gets from using those payment cards. And, because of that, consumers spend more at stores that accept their cards - as much as 30% more. Surcharging card users/discounting for cash is a great example of "penny wise, pound foolish".
It's also worth mentioning that while Apple does get a small fee when the merchant explicitly supports Apple Pay, that fee pays for something that provides huge value to the consumer -- tokenization. When the Merchant accepts an Apple Pay transaction, the merchant never receives the consumer's card number - they receive a substitute.
If the merchant isn't signed up for Apple Pay, then paying with your iPhone is like any other contactless EMV card transaction - except that Apple again uses a token, this time an EMV payment token that is indistinguishable from a payment card number, except it routes to Apple Pay, where it is replaced by the real card number and processed via the payment network. This is a huge consumer benefit that comes for free with an iPhone / Apple Watch.
By the way, the idea that cash is better for merchants is a myth due to other factors as well. First, businesses pay service fees for every type of deposit they make at their bank, including cash. Second, insurance rates are higher for businesses that regularly handle cash. It's definitely not better for consumers, given the many consumer protections in consumer credit law, as well as the benefits provided by most cards, such as extended warranties, fraud protections, etc.
Yeah they should. Most importantly they should allow installation of apps and games from different sources and not just the first party store. Microsoft already do that, Apple does that only in the eu.
No "public" complaints, I'm sure they were mad as hell about it internally.
Exactly, although I'd like to see companies with external links also provide App Store purchases for those that don't want to use external payment or find it more convenient, even if it is more expensive.
It is good that Apple is being forced to allow this, but the app developers should leave the actual decision up to the user. Some apps, like Amazon, Kindle, Audible, I already have a payment relationship with the developer, others, like Waipu.tv (broadcast TV streamer in Germany), I had never heard of and didn't want to set up a subscription with them, with their cancellation rules, I wanted the simplicity of the Apple subscription process, so that I could quickly cancel it again, if I didn't like the service.
Waipu have been offering big discounts, including 2€ a month discount and Netflix basic with ads for 1 year free if I sign up directly, but I still prefer the flexibility and relative safety of the Apple App Store subscription.
Sounds scary, you should stop doing that. If Apple intended for you to do whatever that app allows you to, they’d develop a built in app for it.
Stop being a baby and comply with the law? It would save them an absolute fortune in lawyers fees and fines... Heck, it might even outweigh what they are losing to external payment processes.
If they had quietly allowed this, but made developers include both direct payments and Apple App Store payment alongside each other, many users wouldn't have noticed or would have stuck with the App Store payments, even if they were more expensive.
As it is, they have invested millions, if no billions over the years to shine the biggest Streisand sized spotlight they could on the issue. Maybe the board should be sectioned to protected from further self harm?
I think we're about to see a lot of ads for consumers explaining the security and privacy implications.
When I installed Fortnite on my iPhone, in the first 5 minutes I was hit with at least 3 screens suggesting I pay real money for something in-game. I uninstalled immediately.
Going forward, I recommend to everyone I talk to that if an app uses anything other than Apple in-app payments, they should just stop right there, and uninstall the app. Protecting their private information (and finances!) is more important.
That sums up pretty much all of Big Tech, including Apple... Companies are profit machines, they aren't people, they are by definition amoral and only have the interests of their share holders in focus, if being nice to consumers currently aids that goal, they will do that, if it doesn't, they will change tactics to find a way to increase profits without being nice...
Don't get me wrong, I love my Apple hardware and software, just look at my signature, but in some areas they are on the wrong side of history, and App Store payments is one of those areas. On balance, Apple is, currently, the Big Tech company I distrust the least... But they are fighting really hard to change my opinion of them, and not for the better.
Ever heard of auto-fill, built right into macOS or any browser really for example
This is not a valid argument as the users need another physical device to switch beteen App Store and Play store. It is hardly fair to the customers to be forced to have two phones or switch OS frequently to get their preferred apps due to unreasonable demands (from either side). Some aspects of user protection is needed here.
I am surprised that so many argue for the corporations rights with no throughs about the negative aspects for the consumer. Do you like corporate greed? If I have to choose, I would rather pay tax to get roads, hospitals, schools and military defence, than paying to the next super yatch because I get nothing out of the latter.
You're so wrong.
I literally bought Fortnite + roblox gift cards for my nieces that can be redeemed for in game currency outside the app. And this was way back before Fortnite got banned from the app store.
Side-loading has existed on iOS for almost 15 years, supported by Apple.
The just prohibited it being used to distribute apps to consumers in their terms and conditions.
First, it was just games for kids.
Then it was games for everyone else.
Today, it’s important software for everyone. Apps. And ebooks. And music. And movies.
As the market size, economic importance and breadth of “software” subject to such business model expanded, so does the pushback against it. Because it is undesirable if a monopolist (or in this case a duopoly) charge 30% commission on everything (paid) you see, watch, use and play on computers.
👉 Why would they “go through the roof”? 🤔
Apple and their services business are hugely profitable. And the App Store and IAP are bundled with the operating system and integrated with Apple accounts, thereby giving them a huge advantage over any other market or purchasing option. They’re also supported by very profitable hardware sales - which in turn are supported by a rich app ecosystem (including apps from small developers).
I’m sure Apple will still be hugely profitable without increasing developer costs. There’s no reason why Apple would need to increase costs for developers.
Last edited:
Imagine not knowing you’re being charged 30% more
Also won’t somebody please think of the trillion dollar corporations! /s Apple in this case
I've heard of autofill.
We're discussing iOS inside the app.
I've launched the Amazon app on iOS. Navigated to the add credit card page. I tapped on the credit card input box. It's not autosuggesting to fill in my credit card like it usually does in Safari.
I tapped on the textbox to bring up the context menu. Tapped "autofill". And it's suggesting "Context Passwords Scan Text"
So no, either you copy and paste from somewhere else or you type it in manually. And that's for each textbox which there are many.