Apple's app-store policies are anti-competitive. Even though they recently 'allowed' (How kind of them) publishers to create a link to an external form of payment, where the offer may be better, Apple still demands a significant slice of commission.
I think many users would continue to use in-app purchases as it is a convenient way to pay, but the actions from Apple are poor and heavily restrictive. To save yourself some money, if subscribing, always go to the website, you'll get a better offer than within the app and more of your money will go to the publisher.
There are apps on the App Store in which the only way to pay is by entering your credit card info in the app. Others that link out to bank processing sites in a web view to do the same. This has been true for at least ten years, and the number is not getting smaller as far as I can tell.
As a user of some of these apps, I have always wondered whether there is some exception clause for, say, retailers of physical goods, utilities, and anything remotely to do with transportation. My anecdata suggests it’s more common in the EU and Asia, but a year and a half ago I was standing by the curb in Sacramento cursing the parking meter app for not taking Apple Pay.
> 3.1.3(d) Person-to-Person Services: If your app enables the purchase of real-time person-to-person services between two individuals (for example tutoring students, medical consultations, real estate tours, or fitness training), you may use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments. One-to-few and one-to-many real-time services must use in-app purchase.
> 3.1.3(e) Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchase physical goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit card entry.
Please don't post irritable overgeneralizations about "this forum". The community has an entire spectrum of responses. Singling out the segment that you most dislike while failing to notice the rest is something that many readers do*, but it leads to low-quality comments and lame discussion.
It's neither correct nor incorrect but rather a category error to say that a forum "comprehends" or "understands" or fails to do so. It's basically noise except as a statement of how the commenter feels, and this could be better expressed more substantively and less trope-ily.
I absolutely do NOT want to download/sideload anything from a third party. You are absolutely correct there. Not even from companies I trust (e.g. I wouldn't want to download the Netflix app from Netflix)
- I DO want apple to spend as much money and effort as they do now on vetting
apps.
- I DO realize that means they must grab some money, somwhere.
- I DO NOT want apple to take a cut out of subscriptions for services.
It's as simple as that. There is zero way in hell that apple should have a cut out of subscription services. I should be able to pay any way I want for e.g. podcasts, and Apple should just suck it up and charge $25 from the distributor, once, for reviewing the podcast app.
Basically: Apple needs to just give up their golden egg, run the app store at minium profit, and I hope the EU breaks their kneecaps if they don't swiftly agree to do so.
If the app you downloaded has an update, does the app not need to be revised again? Why would the revision fee not happen with every update?
Would that not mean developers that update more and get better value for their customers are penalised?
Subscription cuts strikes a happy medium, where apple gets paid when the company gets paid, so if they deliver more features they are not penalised but they are also not allowed to update for free forever (potentially adding malicious code without anyone checking due to only being checked the first time they paid).
> Why would the revision fee not happen with every update?
It would. So charge $25 again. So long as they charge what their actual cost is (with a reasonable margin) that's fine. But that's a universe apart from charging 10% of the profits of some streaming service because you "provide the platform".
That would actually be pretty nice; devs would maybe not update every day but once a month or something, and have actual changelogs, AND the review queue would be way shorter.
From a user's perspective it wouldn't be a phone worth buying if those SDKs weren't provided. Why do we have to accept Apple's framing that SDKs are a gift bestowed upon developers rather than an essential part of the software ecosystem that users are buying into?
Third party apps can't exist without the SDK, but the iPhone wouldn't be viable without third party apps. Who makes money in this arrangement has nothing to do with what's fair and everything to do with who has more power.
Your rant seems misguided, given you're talking about "downloads". The GP wasn't talking about downloading apps from outside the App Store, it was about Apple's anti-steering rules within the App Store
But in either case, if the user sentiment is as strong as you claim, Apple has nothing to lose in following the laws. The users will continue to demand installs and payments go via the App Store, and developers will have to continue providing that option or lose customers. Why do you feel so threatened by these laws? It sounds like you don't really have the confidence in 95% of the users agreeing with you.
If users don't want to go to other websites, then developers should notice they're losing sales and be incentivised to offer a more convenient option!
Maybe over time more integrated options could emergy that's as convenient, offers more features, and could be cheaper. Imagine if there was competition!
Ok, fair. Then allow app developers to explain this in the app and provide a link to the external website and let the user decide what they prefer.
The issue is that you can't publish an app unless you hide this information from the user and as a consequence most users aren't even aware that alternatives exists.
Let the user freely decide and you can't charge how much you want for the convenience of your service, even more than 30%, nobody would care.
> This forum will never understand is that 95% of Apple users DO NOT want to go to a random website and download to save a few bucks
Who said they will download from a random website, or that the only advantage is to save a few bucks?
The advantage might be to get software that is not allowed on the app store, or to use a source that you trust more than Apple, or an otherwise better curated source - I would guess a high proportion of F-Droid users trust the software installed from there or find it easier to get what they want than in the Play Store. Why can someone not similarly improve on Apple's store?
> before Apple everything was download, pay and pray.
Your opinion of what users supposedly want is irrelevant. What matters is that the law mandates these options and Apple refuses to comply.
And no - I prefer iOS, for various reasons (such as smooth integration with macOS, better UI), and wanting to download apps from the Apple app store is not the reason.
If 95% users don't want it, then Apple should be happy to provide it as an option since nobody will use it and it will have no impact on Apple's business, right?
> This forum will never understand is that 95% of Apple users DO NOT want to go to a random website and download to save a few bucks.
Almost everyone uses Google's store on Android. The average person doesn't know what 3rd party stores are, they don't go to websites to make payments. I'm a more advanced user and never had to go to a website and download and app, unless I absolutely wanted to.
Not sure why you think it would be different on iOS.
Please don't generalise. My partner still uses IPhone 7 today, and they are certainly interested in saving a few bucks. There are countries poorer than the US and not every Apple user is rich.
Maybe so, but I bet more than 5% of Apple users would appreciate the economic effects of a world in which people can go to a random website and save a few bucks.
Competition is good for markets even if you continue to buy from the incumbent.
Well that sounds like complete nonsense. As an Apple user id definitely take advantage of cheaper ways to purchase the exact same product.
Furthermore - No one is forcing anyone to click the "get this cheaper here" link ... But I'd bet you'd be surprised how many Apple users would click it if it was there. The user and developer both win in that situation.
Considering the glut of scammy, ad-filled garbage on the official App Store, I'm not convinced we haven't ended up exactly where you claim we haven't. That being said, I do agree with you that the vast majority of users probably don't care about alternative app marketplaces (but for the small majority of us who do, I'll continue to champion the EU's efforts here).
Also, for the love of god open up the Apple Messages API please...
Only power users / devs really understand what Apple does in terms of vetting apps.
Regular people just want to be able to install what they want.
As a dev who has to deal with the Apple App store (and someone who is completely bought into the Apple ecosystem, owning an iPhone, Macbook Pro, Vision Pro, Apple Watch, and iPad...), I'd like to just be able to push out an app or update without involving Apple. They require us to do a lot of work that I don't think is necessary and the app approval process is a significant time waster for us.
I think many users would continue to use in-app purchases as it is a convenient way to pay, but the actions from Apple are poor and heavily restrictive. To save yourself some money, if subscribing, always go to the website, you'll get a better offer than within the app and more of your money will go to the publisher.