Yes it is. Apple already forces developers to include hyperlinks to the privacy policy and terms of use in their apps. Apps could just add a "you can purchase here too" hyperlink, and it's done
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.
Judge Says Apple Has Until December 9 to Make App Store Change Letting Developers Link to Alternate Payment Methods
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Many companies don't want to deal with the risk of storing credit card information too and use payment gateways like Mastercard's MPGS.
I think you can still choose to pay via Apple after such changes in app store.
Personally I think 30% for things like magazine subscription is way too much and I prefer a larger share going to the actual content creators.
I'm not going to use external payment systems, I get irritated as it is when apps don't accept Apple Pay as payments.
Well, Google already showed how it could be done, by mandating that developers who use third party payment options still have to pay them a percentage of their earnings. So developers and users get their “choice”, while Apple still gets their cut.
Somehow I think a judge might be more of an authority than you in that matter.
Lol I love how you try to make an argument with no substance. The new Mac Chips now have the same architecture as the iPhone. So they are literally as close as they can get now. You can literally run native iOS apps on a Mac. But go off ?
This would need to be included in App Store Connect for devs, it's not just a question of giving devs cart blanche on just adding a hyperlink within their description, it needs work, it will need code.
Sometimes. Sometimes not. That’s what there are appellate courts.
There's no way Apple will go down without a fight to the end. On one hand I don't blame them as there are literally billions of dollars on the line, but the judge is correct. This is a tricky situation for Apple because it's not the issue of opening up thier platform to sideloading, so that argument is irrelevant. It's opening up their payment system away from the monopoly that it currently is. If they had just charged reasonable rates all along (or reduced their rates in recent years/months) and let devs charge for in-app extras they would have shown good faith to be supporting a competitive and open market. But they were greedy and will lose more in the end.
Hard for a judge stuck in the 19th century to understand this at all. So the nuts are still trying to convince the world that a company that makes a device has to allow any and all other companies full access to anything on it. X-Box will have to support PlayStation. Walmart can’t chose what they sell. Costco can’t only accept Visa? This is very much the case of antiquated thinking.
No
Apple did started to force you to link the privacy policy in app store connect. The terms of use field is optional in App Store Connect, but it needs to at least be placed inside the app and somewhere in the app description. Just treat it as the terms of use is being treated right now
What are ‘reasonable rates’? And why can’t a company let the market decide? if people don’t want to use an iPhone they can buy Android? And since when do ‘reasonable’ rates apply in business? Have you looked at what interest rates credit card companies charge? I just don’t think your argument holds any water. It is irrational. And it completely ignores market realities. Please, buy an Android. Costco only accepts Visa cards. Is that illegal too?
Last edited:
apples and oranges. I don't own a Walmart... anyone should be allowed to create an xBox game.
keep trying though.. Apple needs slaves..
What? because of one small judgement?
Wow…you really need to understand how the law works.
Apple are already looking at appealing this ruling. Next up - the 9th circuit. And if that fails then they’ll possibly appeal that, and request an en blanc rulling from the entire 9th circuit.
I can compare because thats the only way to download apps on iOS is through the App Store. Apple has two choices either allow side loading apps like MacOS or allow external payments through their closed garden App Store. Hopefully down the line Apple will allow side loading apps. Apples security reason on side loading is BS because if their claims were true they would have closed down the Mac a long time ago. I do what more sensitive stuff on Mac computer for work than I would ever do on my IPhone.
Judge doesn’t know how software works. The beauty of letting senior citizen bureaucrats control technology.
Apple's not stupid. They've likely got it ready to go, just needs CRs approved, and push to production. Much like when they bring the store down for updates.
It's not so much coding, as removing code - the automatic checks for links to payment processing. They don't have to code anything for the apps themselves to use other payment methods - that's internal to the developers.
Because people have inalienable rights that Apple is violating.
Sorry I wasn’t clear.
The difference between a mac and an iPad is, as you note, largely software. But those differences are very important to people - iOS is insanely more popular than macOS. And for a reason. People who buy iOS devices mostly LIKE the safety and security that comes from its more locked-down nature.
In reality, the burden of implementing this new system falls on the developer and not on Apple.
Technically the only thing that Apple MUST do in order to comply with this is to update the TOS that 3rd-party payment services are no longer forbidden.
Then any new submissions after Dec 9 will allow links to outside systems.
This ruling does NOT mean that 3rd party systems are allowed (accepting CC payment within the App). The ruling only requires that a link to Safari is provided moving them outside the app for the transaction. Of course the link could include unique identifiers for the individual user and that could affect user privacy and link tracking.
Ultimately this means that a developer could completely bypass the In-App system and unlock features with credit cards on their website... giving the developer 97% of the purchase price instead of 70%/85%. Another advantage is immediate payment instead of waiting 30+ days for Apple to payout. The disadvantage is that users will have to go through a whole lot of additional steps instead of the one-click purchase that In-App provides... so even though the developers are making more per transaction, they might actually be making less overall because of the increased user difficulty in purchasing.
Apple did announce that App submissions will be reviewed in Dec, but slower than normal. If Apple really wanted to be a pain they could rescind that announcement and start the holiday on Dec 9 but not allowing any of those submissions to go live until Jan ? when they come back.
Technically the only thing that Apple MUST do in order to comply with this is to update the TOS that 3rd-party payment services are no longer forbidden.
Then any new submissions after Dec 9 will allow links to outside systems.
This ruling does NOT mean that 3rd party systems are allowed (accepting CC payment within the App). The ruling only requires that a link to Safari is provided moving them outside the app for the transaction. Of course the link could include unique identifiers for the individual user and that could affect user privacy and link tracking.
Ultimately this means that a developer could completely bypass the In-App system and unlock features with credit cards on their website... giving the developer 97% of the purchase price instead of 70%/85%. Another advantage is immediate payment instead of waiting 30+ days for Apple to payout. The disadvantage is that users will have to go through a whole lot of additional steps instead of the one-click purchase that In-App provides... so even though the developers are making more per transaction, they might actually be making less overall because of the increased user difficulty in purchasing.
Apple did announce that App submissions will be reviewed in Dec, but slower than normal. If Apple really wanted to be a pain they could rescind that announcement and start the holiday on Dec 9 but not allowing any of those submissions to go live until Jan ? when they come back.
You think a percentage of what you spend goes to the content creators for magazines? Because it doesn’t. It goes into the pocket of the publisher, who pays the author $200 flat fee to churn out 2000 words.