Linking this here from the other thread, because the above comment cites the actual court documents, which clear up a lot of confusion I'm seeing on this thread. Apple's concession only applies to communications outside of the app using contact information obtained outside of the app. (Which, yes, was somehow disallowed before.)
If your user signed up through the app? Tough luck.
This "concession" only removes a rule that Apple know it never could have defended in court.
I wonder if this will lead to apps not allowing the initial sign-up inside the app, thus potentially reducing usage of AppleID? Although it wouldn't surprise me if Apple were to forbid apps that don't allow in-app sign-up.
Not sure how they can defend any ban on telling users how to pay outside of the app. If Lina Khan tears Apple a new asshole they will be able to trace it back to the hubris displayed here.
I could be wrong but I interpreted the contact information mention this way.
AFAIK it intends to disallow transactional emails like signup (welcome to netflix) from pushing third-party IAP:
> Developers cannot use information obtained within the app to target individual users outside of the app ... (such as sending an individual user an email about other purchasing methods ...
But that generic sentence means you can have a bulk mailing list with messages that mention your own payment option:
> Developers can send communications outside of the app to their user base about purchasing methods other than in-app purchase.
This is the worst tech news headline I’ve ever seen. The change the article is referring to is allowing developers to refer to non-IAP payments in communication with users outside the app (the fact that this was disallowed before blows my mind). This does absolutely nothing to change the in-app anti-steering rules Apple has.
I think I should clarify what changed in the rules. Apple attempted to stop any mass communication to your users from mentioning another way to pay. If they signed up in the app Apple still wanted to lock them in as an IAP customer.
Now you can send bulk emails to consenting account holders and mention non-IAP payment methods without running afoul of the rules.
> 3.1.3 Other Purchase Methods: The following apps may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase. Apps in this section cannot, either within the app or through communications sent to points of contact obtained from account registration within the app (like email or text), encourage users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase.
That's been changed to:
> 3.1.3 Other Purchase Methods: The following apps may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase. Apps in this section cannot, within the app, encourage users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase. Developers cannot use information obtained within the app to target individual users outside of the app to use purchasing methods other than in-app purchase (such as sending an individual user an email about other purchasing methods after that individual signs up for an account within the app). Developers can send communications outside of the app to their user base about purchasing methods other than in-app purchase.
Then the AFAIK unchanged exceptions follow: "reader" (any content store), multiplatform services (yes the guidelines are made so strict allowing the use of previously purchased accounts had to be an exception, "provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app"), P2P, "goods and services outside the app", etc.
This is still a huge step even if not enough. It means that apps like spotify and netflix no longer have to have a screen saying "You can not continue via the app" and nothing more which is terrible UX.
"Head to spotify.com to set up a subscription" is much better UI.
But I don’t get it, it has never been forbidden, isn’t that exactly how netflix and all other subscription business do it? Clearly they have communicated about the payment outside the app?
Thanks Apple, for "letting" me accept payment outside the App Store. Thanks for not watching the streets and not intervening when somebody tries to pay me.
All jokes aside, the wording is wrong. Apple does not "let me". I do. And Apple indeed doesn't stop me.
In one sentence Apple not only 'backs down', but presents itself as the one who 'lets you'. Well, thanks Apple. :')
If I have a web app allowing people to register and pay a recurring fee. Can Apple require that people using the iOS version app pay the subscription through the web store and then pay the Apple tax ?
There is already legislation in process that would do a hell of a lot more than this change including giving vendors the ability to sell entirely via their own store.
Because even in the best case scenario, you’d have to wait a half decade before getting that supposed 200%.
That’s assuming it passes at all. A bill must get actually passed by both houses of congress and signed into law by the president. Until then, it’s vaporware.
And then, once a bill is passed, someone has to enforce it, and that enforcement likely has to work its way through the court system.
This is really big news. Waiting to see some more details. Apparently nothing changes if you decide to take in-app payments but you will be able to take payments outside App Store and avoid the 30% cut Apple takes.
Not exactly. Developers were free to take outside payments for apps. Developers were forbidden from linking or talking about this from within the app. On their on website was OK. This change lets developers tell their customer about outside payments from within the app.
From what I gather, apps are still required to accept Apple Pay if they offer any type of in-app purchase.
And apps that do not work without an outside-app purchase are still rejected as well.
This and another news they will allow more different pricing points, up to 500 from 100.
I wonder if some PR/research team at Apple woke up one day and finally realize the outcry re scan of iPhone in iOS 15 may actually hurt the brand longterm.
This is a step in the right direction, but it's not reform, nor is the kind of transparency that would have remedied issues like the Hey email scandal. In any case, it's an interesting departure from the "courageous" Apple that unabashedly removed the headphone jack and dismissed concern over on-device scanning as 'screeching'.
Actually, it is. Hey developers insisted on their right to tell customers where they can pay right from the app. And shortly they will have this right.
Everything that is done with a platform dependent app can be done with a platform independent web app. I don't know what the best way out of this is but app stores were a step back. Your phone could have one app...a web browser and maybe a few utilities like a calculator, calendar, clock. Even these could be implemented as web apps running in the browser.
So you can't have any platform differentiation and at the same time lose any cohesive, platform specific UI with known conventions.
Instead of two major mobile vendors we end up with one or best case scenario two major browsers from one or two tech companies with enough resources to to build and maintain them.
lolinder|4 years ago
Linking this here from the other thread, because the above comment cites the actual court documents, which clear up a lot of confusion I'm seeing on this thread. Apple's concession only applies to communications outside of the app using contact information obtained outside of the app. (Which, yes, was somehow disallowed before.)
If your user signed up through the app? Tough luck.
This "concession" only removes a rule that Apple know it never could have defended in court.
askvictor|4 years ago
spoonjim|4 years ago
dustyharddrive|4 years ago
AFAIK it intends to disallow transactional emails like signup (welcome to netflix) from pushing third-party IAP:
> Developers cannot use information obtained within the app to target individual users outside of the app ... (such as sending an individual user an email about other purchasing methods ...
But that generic sentence means you can have a bulk mailing list with messages that mention your own payment option:
> Developers can send communications outside of the app to their user base about purchasing methods other than in-app purchase.
(edit: found this comment which explains it more concisely https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28324005)
arglebarglegar|4 years ago
[deleted]
dustyharddrive|4 years ago
(edit: for clarity)
dustyharddrive|4 years ago
Now you can send bulk emails to consenting account holders and mention non-IAP payment methods without running afoul of the rules.
Here's the old App Review Guideline clause (https://web.archive.org/web/20210401043354/https://developer...):
> 3.1.3 Other Purchase Methods: The following apps may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase. Apps in this section cannot, either within the app or through communications sent to points of contact obtained from account registration within the app (like email or text), encourage users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase.
That's been changed to:
> 3.1.3 Other Purchase Methods: The following apps may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase. Apps in this section cannot, within the app, encourage users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase. Developers cannot use information obtained within the app to target individual users outside of the app to use purchasing methods other than in-app purchase (such as sending an individual user an email about other purchasing methods after that individual signs up for an account within the app). Developers can send communications outside of the app to their user base about purchasing methods other than in-app purchase.
Then the AFAIK unchanged exceptions follow: "reader" (any content store), multiplatform services (yes the guidelines are made so strict allowing the use of previously purchased accounts had to be an exception, "provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app"), P2P, "goods and services outside the app", etc.
edit: line breaks :)
SilverRed|4 years ago
"Head to spotify.com to set up a subscription" is much better UI.
Grustaf|4 years ago
rambambram|4 years ago
All jokes aside, the wording is wrong. Apple does not "let me". I do. And Apple indeed doesn't stop me.
In one sentence Apple not only 'backs down', but presents itself as the one who 'lets you'. Well, thanks Apple. :')
chmike|4 years ago
michaelmrose|4 years ago
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/11/bipartisan-bill-targets-appl...
If lawmakers are already going to give you 200% of what you originally asked for why on earth would you settle for half?
setpatchaddress|4 years ago
That’s assuming it passes at all. A bill must get actually passed by both houses of congress and signed into law by the president. Until then, it’s vaporware.
And then, once a bill is passed, someone has to enforce it, and that enforcement likely has to work its way through the court system.
rlalwani|4 years ago
etaioinshrdlu|4 years ago
From what I gather, apps are still required to accept Apple Pay if they offer any type of in-app purchase.
And apps that do not work without an outside-app purchase are still rejected as well.
joering2|4 years ago
I wonder if some PR/research team at Apple woke up one day and finally realize the outcry re scan of iPhone in iOS 15 may actually hurt the brand longterm.
oenetan|4 years ago
https://archive.is/lnqON
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]
quyleanh|4 years ago
eclipxe|4 years ago
DarthNebo|4 years ago
smoldesu|4 years ago
viktorcode|4 years ago
unknown|4 years ago
[deleted]
oreally|4 years ago
eclipxe|4 years ago
uCantCauseUCant|4 years ago
[deleted]
aero-glide2|4 years ago
morpheos137|4 years ago
hossbeast|4 years ago
jayd16|4 years ago
jamil7|4 years ago
Instead of two major mobile vendors we end up with one or best case scenario two major browsers from one or two tech companies with enough resources to to build and maintain them.