WordPress for iOS Was Blocked From Updating Unless it Agreed to Add In-App Purchases for .Com Plans [Updated]

[CthuluLemon]

"Why innovate when you can charge a fee!" - The Xi-Cook School of Business.

 

[russell_314]

The wordpress app has on the app store for years.

Did they have to wait until the exact month where they're under scrutiny by multiple governments and corporations for their (alleged) anti-competitive behaviours.

Whether they're in the right or wrong, it's hardly a good timing

I seriously doubt that this violation was present for years. Just like Fortnite has been in the App Store for years but only recently the developer decided to violate App Store policy. Perhaps the timing is coincidental or perhaps multiple developers are saying this is a great time to do such things that bring negative attention to Apple. Either way if Apple sees a violation they cannot just ignore it because then it sets a precedent. All the other app devs that don’t want to pay their fair share will say will look at WordPress you let them get away with breaking the rules so why can’t I? Again this is not something Apple is doing. This is developers putting apps in the App Store that are in violation.

 

[the8thark]

Because it is impractical not to be on iOS in 2020.

Impractical doesn't equal illegal though. You're free to come up with your own alternate way that is practical.

It's no different from paying your income tax.

I agree totally. Lots of things are paid for by taxes. Garbage collection, road upgrades, major infrastructure construction, frontline public servants like fire fighters, police, doctors etc etc. All these services we benefit from are not free. There is a cost. Our taxes.

Just like everything epic benefits from by beibg on the iOS app store comes at a cost. a 30% cost.

 

[paulcons]

Simple solution... price anything via app store 30% higher than if purchased elsewhere.

Of course, the more reasonable thing is if the fruit charged something along the line of an extra 5-10%... that should more than cover the cost of them operation (and btw, the app store contributes HUGELY to the fruit's bottom line anyway).

 

[deevey]

Of course, the more reasonable thing is if the fruit charged something along the line of an extra 5-10%... that should more than cover the cost of them operation (and btw, the app store contributes HUGELY to the fruit's bottom line anyway).

You don't open a shopping mall to break even. The App Store also contributes highly to the developers bottom line. Any customers that sign up as a direct result of the app should be paying for those signups/subscriptions.

Its a symbiotic relationship

 

[lederermc]

It is: Neflix and other applications are considered "reader" apps and that's why they are allowed to offer an external subscription and no equivalent IAP through Apple.

As soon as an App allows more than just consume content more or less passively, it cannot only offer external purchases and has to offer an equivalent IAP through Apple.

Interesting distinction. And I would hope the courts invalidate that distinction. I have a Fidelity account. I open an account in the IOS app. I make stock purchases and sells in the IOS app. Some of those transactions are Fidelity Mutual Funds... I make a profit (hopefully) ... Does Apple deserve a 30% cut?

 

[bsolar]

I have a Fidelity account. I open an account in the IOS app. I make stock purchases and sells in the IOS app. Some of those transactions are Fidelity Mutual Funds... I make a profit (hopefully) ... Does Apple deserve a 30% cut?

Apple mandates their IAP system only for the purchase of digital goods: stock trading likely falls outside that scope.