'Reader' Apps Can Now Add Links for Account Signups Outside of the App Store

[MacRumors]

Apple today informed developers of "reader" apps that they are able to sign up for access to an "External Link Account Entitlement" that will allow the app to offer a link to a website so users can create or manage an account outside of the App Store.

Reader apps are able to link to a website that is owned or maintained by the developer for account signups. So, for example, an app like Netflix can provide an in-app link that goes directly to the Netflix website for account signups, something that was not allowed before the change. Apple updated its App Store guidelines to reflect the change.

Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video). Reader apps may offer account creation for free tiers, and account management functionality for existing customers. Reader app developers may apply for the External Link Account Entitlement to provide an informational link in their app to a web site the developer owns or maintains responsibility for in order to create or manage an account. Learn more about the External Link Account Entitlement.

Apple considers reader apps to be those that provide digital content that includes magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, or video as the primary functionality of the app. Apple made this change to reader apps in order to settle an investigation launched by the Japanese Fair Trade Commission.

According to Apple, reader apps do not offer in-app digital goods and services for purchase and are primarily aimed at allowing users to browse previously purchased content or content subscriptions, which is why Apple agreed to allow apps share a single link for account management purposes.

Apps that use the External Link Account Entitlement must provide reader content, must not offer in-app purchases, and must not offer real-time, person-to-person services. Apps that allow people to access digital content like music or video, but not as the primary functionality, such a social networking apps, are not considered reader apps.

When announcing the change in September, Apple said that it would update its App Store guidelines and review process to "make sure users of reader apps continue to have a safe experience on the ‌App Store‌." Apple plans to help developers of reader apps "protect users when they link to an external website to make purchases."

The reader app change will affect many of Apple's biggest competitors, including Spotify, Netflix, Hulu, and more, with the change applicable to all reader apps globally.

Article Link: 'Reader' Apps Can Now Add Links for Account Signups Outside of the App Store

 

[neuropsychguy]

This is a positive step. Apple can still get a commission for apps that must have iOS to function (e.g., a game) but allow other companies that just stream to benefit from iOS without having to pay Apple's commission. Maybe Apple will compensate by increasing the developer fees for these developers (I know, don't give Apple any ideas).

 

[jlc1978]

It sounds like, in response to government proding, Apple is taking it one step at a time as it modifies teh App Store guidelines. That makes sense, as they can learn from each iteration and use the info to maintain as much revenue as possible from the App Store.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Apps that use the External Link Account Entitlement must provide reader content, must not offer in-app purchases, and must not offer real-time, person-to-person services. Apps that allow people to access digital content like music or video, but not as the primary functionality, such a social networking apps, are not considered reader apps.

Apple needs to stop with these arbitrary distinctions.

The 3rd party account restrictions are inserting Apple into revenue streams they have no business getting a piece of.

 

[jlc1978]

This is a positive step. Apple can still get a commission for apps that must have iOS to function (e.g., a game) but allow other companies that just stream to benefit from iOS without having to pay Apple's commission. Maybe Apple will compensate by increasing the developer fees for these developers (I know, don't give Apple any ideas).

I could see them charge host and or d/l fees for such apps at some point.

 

[DFZD]

 

[iSRS]

So, for example, an app like Netflix can provide an in-app link that goes directly to the Netflix website for account signups, something that was not allowed before the change.

Are we sure about this? Because right below the above, you have a box that says: (emphasis mine)

Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, and video). Reader apps may offer account creation for free tiers, and account management functionality for existing customers.

 

[CWallace]

Apple needs to stop with these arbitrary distinctions.

The 3rd party account restrictions are inserting Apple into revenue streams they have no business getting a piece of.

Good luck with that, considering Steve Jobs instilled in the Management Team that Apple deserved a cut of everything that leveraged their platforms.

 

[CWallace]

Are we sure about this? Because right below the above, you have a box that says: (emphasis mine)

I would presume that "includes free tiers" and not "exclusively free tiers", but I guess we will get further clarification.

 

[BootsWalking]

So awesome Apple is allowing us to access our own accounts in apps developed by third-party companies who spent millions on development, with Apple earning billions for their cut.

 

[CapitalIdea]

Apple needs to stop with these arbitrary distinctions.

The 3rd party account restrictions are inserting Apple into revenue streams they have no business getting a piece of.

Why should apple provide hosting of the apps as well as update delivery for free? If that's your stance, get ready for hosting fees and metered delivery.

 

[_Spinn_]

What was Apple's logic for blocking this in the first place?

 

[macduke]

Finally.​

 

[turbineseaplane]

What was Apple's logic for blocking this in the first place?

They just love control

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Makes me laugh how Apple portrays such moves as a gesture of goodwill, when it takes the risk of fines and government intervention to actually force the move ?‍♂️

 

[adamw]

This is welcome news. Hopefully this should cut down on Governmental Regulation and Control of the App Store.

 

[Jaymes]

Are we sure about this? Because right below the above, you have a box that says: (emphasis mine)

I'm reading this as, you can sign up through the reader app for free accounts, or you can use an existing account in the reader app. If you want to create a new paid account (i.e. purchase new content/subscription), it can only be done outside the app (e.g. through the Netflix website for Netflix), and then you can use that account inside the reader app. In a sense, you are bypassing iOS for purchasing the account/subscription so as not to have pay a fee to Apple. Apple just isn't going to offer you the luxury of doing it directly through an app on their platform without getting a cut.

 

[turbineseaplane]

In a sense, you are bypassing iOS for purchasing the account/subscription so as not to have pay a fee to Apple.

...which is good, because Apple is not entitled to a cut of your transactions with third parties, particularly for any recurring content (but really none of it honestly).

We've got to stop tolerating this gatekeeper behavior of theirs.

 

[bluecoast]

The way things are going in the USA and the EU, this’ll be the first of many changes that apple will have to make.

It’s extremely disappointing how begrudging they seem to be to make even the smallest changes.

Their intransigence here will end up backfiring on them, I predict.

And by the end of all of this, I also predict they the only people who will actually suffer are those concerned with maximising the profitability of Apple’s service devision - it’ll be great for everyone else.

 

[AndiG]

Too little, too late. „must provide reader content, must not offer in-app purchases, and must not offer real-time, person-to-person services.“ This is what should save you from getting regulated, Apple? It is just pure evidence that Apple has to be regulated.

 

[macfacts]

I could see them charge host and or d/l fees for such apps at some point.

There's no line item on an invoice some where but devs do pay a yearly fee.

 

[Devyn89]

See regulation can be a good thing. Forces Apple‘s hand. The fact that it took 7 years from when Apple Music started to stop Apple from essentially charging a tax on Spotify through its App Store fees is embarrassing. The fact that they can charge Spotify a fee and not themselves when it’s a business they directly compete in should never have happening in the first place, I’m glad this change is being made. I’m generally in line with some of Apple’s arguments about the App Store and side loading more generally but this specific one always made me mad.

 

[DaPizzaMan]

I could see them charge host and or d/l fees for such apps at some point.

What is the point of the $99 annual developer fee?

 

[Deguello]

Why should apple provide hosting of the apps as well as update delivery for free? If that's your stance, get ready for hosting fees and metered delivery.

How much does MS charge you to download, for example, the Netflix app for xbox?

 

[tongxinshe]

How about book reading apps that support daily/weekly/randomly updating with new chapters that each chapter requires an extra fee? Basically, I need to have enough credit balance inside the app to read the regarding new chapters, which is now considered “in-app purchase”.