Apple Will Now let App Store Developers Talk To Their Customers About Buying Direct (techcrunch.com) 19
Apple announced today it has reached a proposed settlement in a lawsuit filed against it by developers in the United States. The agreement, which is still pending court approval, includes a few changes, the biggest one being that developers will be able to share information on how to pay for purchases outside of their iOS app or the App Store -- which means they can tell customers about payment options that aren't subject to Apple commissions. The settlement also includes more pricing tiers and a new transparency report about the app review process. From a report: The class-action lawsuit was filed against Apple in 2019 by app developers Donald Cameron and Illinois Pure Sweat Basketball, who said the company engaged in anticompetitive practices by only allowing the downloading of iPhone apps through its App Store. In today's announcement, Apple said it is "clarifying that developers can use communications, such as emails, to share information about payment methods outside of their iOS app. As always, developers will not pay Apple a commission on any purchases taking place outside of their app or the App Stores."
You're allowed to send emails... (Score:2, Insightful)
So their clarification was that you can send your customers emails to tell them how to buy outside of your app? If their wording hasn't changed to allow non-Apple payment methods inside apps, then this is basically nothing.
Still, absurd that before they didn't even let you contact people outside of the platform. You needed to just pretend your app didn't exist outside their app store? It's 2021, that's not how anything works. Or at least, shouldn't be.
Re: You're allowed to send emails... (Score:2)
To be honest I'm not sure I actually want app developers contacting me. It's inevitably going to be come one more spammy source of junk mail that makes me regret being a customer in the first place.
Re: (Score:1)
I mean, massive +1 to not wanting to be emailed by developers. I guess my thought is that Apple has changed their wording to allow developers to email people about other payment options (or use "other communication methods"), which is the most band-aid of band-aid fixes I can think of to the actual problem which is that Apple shouldn't be forcing developers to use their payment method that takes a 30% cut.
But yeah, 100% not here for even more spam.
Re: You're allowed to send emails... (Score:5, Informative)
To be honest I'm not sure I actually want app developers contacting me. It's inevitably going to be come one more spammy source of junk mail that makes me regret being a customer in the first place.
Good news, everyone
Users must consent to the communication and have the right to opt out.
According Apple, [apple.com] you need to consent prior to the emails, and you can opt-out.
Would be great if also in-app (Score:5, Informative)
This is a good first step, but it would be really great if this were also OK to do in-app (like a link) to bring people over to a web portal to pay, instead of using an in-app purchase.
That block was always the thing that struck me as unfair about Apple's rules, there is great benefit to being able to make use of Apple's large user base that can quickly buy via in-app, but it just seemed wrong not to be able to mention you could also buy from a company directly via a web site...
There isn't even a lot of risk to it from Apple's side. I personally would pay extra to subscribe via In-app purchase due to the extra ease of being able to cancel a subscription.
So, I am hoping this rule adjustment is refined and "messaging" includes some for of in-app notice that you could subscribe via web.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good first step, but it would be really great if this were also OK to do in-app (like a link) to bring people over to a web portal to pay, instead of using an in-app purchase.
That block was always the thing that struck me as unfair about Apple's rules, there is great benefit to being able to make use of Apple's large user base that can quickly buy via in-app, but it just seemed wrong not to be able to mention you could also buy from a company directly via a web site...
There isn't even a lot of risk to it from Apple's side.
The risk to Apple is they simply become a place to download apps and developers get all the payments outside the IAP model; thus costing Apple a lot of revenue. Apple would no doubt find other ways to make up the shortfall, such as charging developers per download if the offer an alternative to IAP. Apple could offset the fee by subscription revenue from IAP and only charge for d/ls above that amount. This would hurt developers as they would have to shell out for each d/l whether or not it resulted in a
Don't see much risk. (Score:2)
The risk to Apple is they simply become a place to download apps and developers get all the payments outside the IAP model
I don't think it's much of a risk, because it's so much easier and safer to buy though Apple, like I said it's worth premium. If I have to go off to some website and go through a traditional purchase form where I have to enter a CC, in a lot of cases I'm not going to buy - not compared to a few clicks for an Apple on device payment.
I'm sure they would lose a bit, but it would not be muc
Re: (Score:2)
The risk to Apple is they simply become a place to download apps and developers get all the payments outside the IAP model
I don't think it's much of a risk, because it's so much easier and safer to buy though Apple, like I said it's worth premium. If I have to go off to some website and go through a traditional purchase form where I have to enter a CC, in a lot of cases I'm not going to buy - not compared to a few clicks for an Apple on device payment.
I'm sure they would lose a bit, but it would not be much and it would further highlight just how much better the traction was buying through Apple.
Good points. May main point is losing revenue is likely to result in Apple finding other ways to generate revenue via ap sales and add fees that will hurt smaller vendors. For example, charging to issue certificates via upfront and ongoing subscriptions. This could result in upfront costs that small developers can't easily afford. Of course, Apple could waive them for all sales through it's store.
Re: (Score:1)
Apple finding other ways to generate revenue via ap sales and add fees that will hurt smaller vendors. For example, charging to issue certificates via upfront and ongoing subscriptions.
Good point about that being a future risk, but I think as long as Apple makes the bulk of sales from hardware they will not feel the need to replace App Store revenue with other streams like that. A good sign is that after many years Apple has never increased the cost of a developer account (still just $99/year).
Re: (Score:2)
It's a first step. Apple traditionally goes from most restrictive to looser, which works well. After all, the App Store was really restrictive in the beginning and has slowly opened up, making it much less of a disaster than Google Play which started completely open and now added a bunch of restrictions.
But chances are, they're going to do this first, see how it goes, then let developers take you to a portal. But likely if you're going to do things this way, Apple will force you to not take Apple's payments
Sadly not a first step at all. :-( (Score:1)
It's a first step. Apple traditionally goes from most restrictive to looser,
They do... however it unfortunately turns out there was no change at all, the Apple rules are exactly as they were (yes the email thing was allowed before apparently).
Go to this this [iosdevweekly.com] iOS blog and scroll down to "There are no App Store changes in this press release".
I don't get it (Score:2)
I buy lots of of things in my Amazon app, and Apple doesn't get 30%.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"The charge only covers digital goods."
I know. :-(
That's why I can't buy ebooks with my kindle app nor audiobooks with my audible app but with my firefox app I can.
so EPIC can make this change and apple must let th (Score:2)
so EPIC can make this change and apple must let them back onto the app store?