Smart that developers are quickly updating their apps while Apple is still appealing the decision. Once users get used to the added purchase options and cheaper pricing there's no going back, regardless of what the final ruling is.
placardloop · 53m ago
You’re right there won’t be any going back. You’re wrong about who is being smart about it.
If Apple wins appeal, they’ll happily and quickly reinstate the fees. It’ll be the app developers who then get stuck paying the fees because, as you mentioned, their users will be used to it and there’s no going back.
wmf · 2h ago
Apple will change the rules back in seconds if the court decision is stayed. Literally billions are at stake here.
makeitdouble · 2h ago
They might, but they'll have lost the "it's for consumer's good" battle through and through.
4 years ago some people were still swallowing the security or privacy argument, and users didn't understand what they were missing. This time any of these facades will be broken to death.
redczar · 2h ago
I buy the security and privacy argument. I don’t want to deal with anyone other than Apple for refunds, cancellations, etc. I don’t trust anyone else to make these things easy.
makeitdouble · 1h ago
That Apple ecosystem only isolation is something you had to wish for in the first place, so for you, technically nothing changes.
For instance up until now you probably refused to register to Netflix or any other system that manages payments and subscription outside of Apple, and you can keep doing so.
Same way you probably didn't register PayPal integration that would have shifted part of the cancellation/refunds to PayPal. You of course didn't integrate PayPay either.
Basically you can keep being Apple only, as you always did. From the discovery documents, Apple didn't seem to give a damn about these and only discussed revenue regarding their policies, but you're free to see what you want in Apple's behavior.
redczar · 1h ago
Yes. I don’t think Apple is a saint. I think it understands that forcing consumer friendly practices for its customers makes sense especially if they get paid to do so.
adityamwagh · 1h ago
Making people pay more on Apple devices for the same service is customer friendly?
vlovich123 · 18m ago
Have you tried cancelling your audible subscription? Compare that with the experience cancelling a subscription with Apple and you quickly realize the experience is more consumer friendly. You look at it from a price perspective while others look at it from a value perspective.
redczar · 58m ago
Apparently I believe so since it provides me with an experience I’m willing to pay a premium for.
bigiain · 1h ago
But you already didn't have the security of Apple's payment processing when you were buying Kindle books.
(Admittedly, I'm now waiting for the stories of users being surprised when they paid their FartTorchPRO app subscription via paypal.ru and finding their credit card details all over the darkweb.)
tchalla · 2h ago
I feel you to a large disagree. That said Apple’s IAP has multiple issues
I don’t know anything about the issue from a developer perspective. I just know that as a consumer I like how Apple handles things.
burnerthrow008 · 1h ago
Really? Most of those sound like positives to me (the consumer)
I am not shedding any tears over developers not being able to nag me about why I’m cancelling, for example.
Same goes for all the shenanigans mentioned about variable pricing for different users.
I think a lot of devs are out of touch with what customers want: transparent pricing, easy cancellation, not worrying about the store running off with my credit card. How the costs are split up between Apple and the devs is jury not something anyone cares about.
paxys · 1h ago
No one is forcing you to move away from IAP and subscriptions. Just ignore the link that takes you to the web. And be ready to pay a 30% premium for your convenience, because that is what Apple has priced it at.
redczar · 1h ago
Obviously. I was merely demonstrating that some people like buying through the App store.
thaumasiotes · 1h ago
> I don’t want to deal with anyone other than Apple for refunds, cancellations, etc. I don’t trust anyone else to make these things easy.
Amazon has an incredibly generous return policy. This is a strange argument to make for the Kindle app.
redczar · 57m ago
Try cancelling Prime. Then try buying something from Amazon without them trying to trick you into a Prime membership. Amazon sucks. Also its return policies over the years have gotten quite obtuse for physical goods in my experience.
madeofpalk · 2h ago
It would be great if the market could figure out this.
redczar · 1h ago
The market figures it wrong in lots of instances. Like cancelling cable subscriptions or gym membership. The market, in your parlance, did decide this by Apple being the most profitable phone maker. People could buy other phones and didn’t. I guess that version of the market figuring it out you don’t like.
bigyabai · 1h ago
> The market, in your parlance, did decide this by Apple being the most profitable phone maker.
I don't recall that defense saving Microsoft back in the day.
redczar · 1h ago
My point is, saying “let the market decide” is a stupid response. One can always pick a starting point and say, “but the market did decide”.
bigyabai · 2h ago
They have, on the Mac.
gjsman-1000 · 2h ago
Then you can happily tell Apple to fix it. Apple already has a system for this called Apple Pay, and it’s royalty free on top of regular credit card networks.
If it’s about security and privacy only, demand the ability to check out in an app using Apple’s own payment platform. Watch Apple squirm.
As for the subscription convenience, I know how to make this even better. Let’s give Visa and Stripe a monopoly on all transactions, and then have them build a unified subscription portal. Awesomeness!
redczar · 2h ago
I don’t understand your points. If I buy things through the App store on iOS I know if there is a problem I can get relief very easily. I can easily cancel subscriptions without having to jump through a bunch of hoops. I prefer to keep things this way. You apparently don’t. As such we disagree.
paxys · 2h ago
Sure, but customers aren't going to be defending their decision after that like they always do.
chaosbolt · 2h ago
Apple is a status brand, customers will still defend their decisions even if they found out that Tim Cook is a real life Sith lord or something of that magnitude.
mrkpdl · 2h ago
This is a misconception. For most Apple users it isn’t about status, it’s just the brand they use because they like the products and the way they work together. That doesn’t mean they don’t wish they were better in many ways (including this one).
9283409232 · 1h ago
It can be both. Like the whole green bubble vs blue bubble thing in iMessage. More people than you might think look at Apple as the status brand but that doesn't mean they don't also enjoy how well everything works together.
paxys · 2h ago
No brand lasts forever. Even on HN, a couple years ago every comment even vaguely anti-Apple tax would be immediately downvoted. When the Epic lawsuit was first filed Tim Sweeney was public enemy #1 over here. Now people are warming up to the idea that Apple might be harming consumers and developers with their app store rules.
thaumasiotes · 1h ago
There was a period where the Android Kindle app stopped allowing you to make purchases. (You'd have to visit Amazon instead.) But they've resumed.
I'm curious about what happened.
Workaccount2 · 2h ago
The consumers are...not sharp.
They will blame the app developers for raising prices.
digianarchist · 2h ago
Is anyone confident that Apple will win on appeal?
By the effort developers putting into payment-flows I would say they aren't, but depending on the volume it could be purely for short-term gain.
threeseed · 2h ago
Courts don't care about the amount of effort developers are spending to take advantage of the window before an appeal has been ruled on.
techjamie · 1h ago
I think the implication that is being made here is that the other companies have examined their odds, and determined that the odds are good enough that they would dedicate the resources.
Which, presumably, means their legal teams examine the case and think that the appeal won't succeed.
Though there is always the possibility that it was relatively inexpensive to implement, and the increased sales in the meanwhile during the legal battle will outweigh the cost of changing it.
znpy · 2h ago
It would be way smarter if the prices were discounted of something like 20% when brought through the app… if apple wins the appeal they (aws and others) can now blame apple and shift the public perception of apple
gjsman-1000 · 2h ago
This also, long term, could kill the 30% commission. Why, as a developer, would you be stupid enough to launch your app as a paid product on the App Store?
Your discoverability is massively impaired, we already knew that. You also give Apple 30% of your cash.
Free app + external web purchase = maximum discoverability at 0% tax.
When things get more advanced, that web purchase link will be an authenticated URL - meaning one click to open the web browser already logged in. Register a protocol handler, remember their card information (or, ironically, use Apple Pay), and one tap in the app, a flash of the web browser, and they’re back in the app with purchase complete.
Apple needs to address this at WWDC. In the US and EU, there are zero, heck, negative advantages of selling on the App Store. All pain, all fees, no benefit of any kind. That’s a big deal.
digianarchist · 2h ago
The likely outcome is that Apple will reduce the 30% to something at least marginally competitive with alternative payment systems.
madeofpalk · 1h ago
Many companies would never use Apple's IAP regardless of the cost because companies want a direct relationship with their user for things like refunds and trials and other stuff.
crooked-v · 1h ago
My immediate interpretation of "direct relationship" is one part "we want your email to send you marketing spam" and one part "we want to add as much friction as possible to cancellations".
isodev · 2h ago
The entire “store” model needs to go away. Phones are computers now, just let people download and install whatever they want or need.
threeseed · 2h ago
> Phones are computers now
No one but irrelevant nerds think this. And the market has demonstrated this time and time again.
Most people think of phones as being console-like entertainment devices. And aren't interested in scams, malware, virus checkers etc that are needed in a free for all model.
shakna · 2h ago
Malware and virus protection apps are already among the most installed across both Android and iOS.
threeseed · 1h ago
At least here in Australia. Neither are in the top 50 for either Android or iOS.
And on iOS there are no virus protection apps, period.
digianarchist · 1h ago
I don't believe this can be done whilst maintaining a strong sandbox.
postalrat · 57m ago
What's in these apps that a decent web browser can't do?
burnte · 2h ago
Apple will never do this voluntarily.
threeseed · 2h ago
a) It's 15% for most developers.
b) Buying a product through IAP is one click. Versus having to go to a signup page, provide details, enter credit card details, wait for credit card verification flows etc. The drop off in conversions during this can be often greater than 15%.
c) Apple's centralised subscription management has been extremely useful and consumer friendly. Versus having to now deal with NY Times style scam tactics for every subscription again.
paxys · 1h ago
B is also one click, considering Stripe and others already offer Apple Pay as a payment option.
For C, customers can choose to continue using Apple's subscription management if they think it's worth the 30% premium that Apple charges. Or Apple could reduce the price to something more reasonable (Stripe Billing offers a similar feature set and costs 0.7%).
asadotzler · 1h ago
b) Apple Pay on Stripe seems a pretty low friction experience for web purchases. My app has a "buy" button that pops up a Safari window with an Apple Pay button the user clicks. Sure, it's an extra click but I doubt it's a slam dunk that the extra click is going to consistently cut conversions by 15% (or 30% for big outfits.)
RandallBrown · 2h ago
C is my biggest reason I'm not looking forward to these changes.
I love having a single dashboard for all my subscriptions and having an easy way to cancel them.
gjsman-1000 · 2h ago
Now calculate the drop off every time someone saw the prompt: “Please confirm your Apple ID password.”
I’m sure it’s substantial over the years. As for point C, I really don’t care, every monopoly has had at least some advantages. We could make this even better by giving Visa a monopoly and having them build a web portal.
madeofpalk · 2h ago
> Why, as a developer, would you be stupid enough to launch your app as a paid product on the App Store?
Higher conversion rate.
cyberax · 1h ago
That's been highly questionable for a while.
davidjade · 44s ago
Anecdotally I know but my app converts from free trials at 4x iOS vs Android. Has done so for years and years. Same app, same price, same audience (North American boaters). Similar free trial numbers too.
Niche app that sells at a higher price than your average app. Ie my users have disposable income but the Android users don’t like to pay for higher prices apps like the iOS users will.
mvdtnz · 2h ago
If Apple and their payments system offers as much value as they think then the market will make the determination, now that that's possible.
lilyball · 2h ago
That sounds like an awful user experience. There's no way I'm ever buying a mobile app that requires me to go enter my credit card into a website to pay for it. Cross-platform services can justify this sort of thing (because you're buying a subscription to the service across all platforms), but doing it for what otherwise would be a paid app purchase is incredibly user-hostile.
gjsman-1000 · 2h ago
I think you’re in the minority there - users enter their information constantly for physical items. Nobody raises an eyebrow, let alone calls it hostile.
Also, problem solved, just use Apple Pay on the checkout page. Ironic, but royalty free, and one-click to enable in Stripe.
No comments yet
aianus · 1h ago
I’d do it for 30% off
sundaeofshock · 2h ago
Why would a developer lower their prices? Most people are not aware that Apple takes a cut of all sales. Further, the app developers have already set their prices to maximize revenue. Also, in instances like Amazon, they have already set a cross-platform price that I suspect they won’t want to touch.
Bottom line: I wouldn’t expect many discounts here.
paxys · 2h ago
> Why would a developer lower their prices
Plenty of them already do. Google's services (YouTube Premium and others), for example, are $5/mo more expensive if you purchase them via Apple IAP. Spotify memberships are 30% more expensive on Apple. There are countless other examples. They just weren't allowed to advertise the cheaper option on iOS until now.
keenmaster · 2h ago
The market ultimately determines the discount, not the company. In a competitive market, some of the gains from Apple’s change will accrue to the consumer, and some will accrue to the developer. What % goes to whom depends on demand elasticity.
Even if a particular list price doesn’t change, I’d expect more frequent and deeper sales.
In a less competitive market for a good or service (due to lack of antitrust enforcement) there should still be discounts, in proportion to the residual competitiveness. E.g. the mobile game market is very competitive, so I’d expect more discounts vs. the video entertainment market where there has been a lot of aggregation.
no_wizard · 2h ago
What you're seeing is companies that can - and many actually do this - offer you different pricing between in app purchasing and their website are now offering you a link to their website where you can sign up for the cheaper price. One notable example of this in practice is Spotify, where its cheaper to sign up on the web than via the app.
I've also heard Netflix has suspended all in app subscriptions and is only going to link to their website for sign ups. I'm unsure if that will translate into savings, but I suspect you're going to see more of this behavior as well.
The 30% / 15% tax is very real and companies that don't have to pay that will be better positioned in the long run, so I imagine even if the price is the same, they'll be able to pocket more revenue doing this as well
I suspect this won't affect games much, except for the exceedingly big ones like Fortnite, but I treat that as a whole separate sector at this point.
wmf · 2h ago
It was mostly never about lower prices. Apps like Kindle and Fortnite just didn't allow in-app purchasing at all and now they will.
blmarket · 2h ago
Yeah, tariffs won't increase the price...
beastman82 · 3h ago
those users will stick with their Apple products and lose the ability to "get the book" (so to speak). So yes, there is going back.
tantalor · 3h ago
> lose the ability
What, why? They can complete the purchase flow in a browser instead of the app. What is lost?
ewidar · 3h ago
They mean that if apple wins the appeal, the in-app new purchase flow will be removed but users will likely not leave the apple ecosystem
nguyenkien · 2h ago
Bút now, they know the web offer cheaper. And likely search before give Apple 30% on other apps
justanotheratom · 2h ago
Apple is generally on the side of customers, but this is a clear example of how anti-customer-friendly their policy was. As a customer, I had to jump through hoops to buy a book on their premium platform.
adamwk · 22m ago
I guess this is a side-effect where, as things stood, developers were incentivized to just forgo IAP and force users to jump through hoops to find how to give them money; and that in turn wasn’t customer friendly. But in general I much prefer IAP to whatever payment system the developer uses. It makes it so easy to do things like change or cancel any payments I have.
In general I think centralized stores are customer friendly but anti developer. As a less controversial example, see how many gamers will wait months or years for a game to leave the Epic game store and go on Steam.
Apple is certainly innovative which helps consumers, but that's about it. The rest is bare minimum for the price point.
Vicinity9635 · 50m ago
Apple maps, "Intelligence", siri, etc all run on device because Apple is in the market of selling devices. As many as they can. Whereas google is in the market of selling you to advertisers.
It's literally a major difference in their fundamental business models.
al_borland · 1h ago
There was also a conflict of interest, considering Apple has their own bookstore.
lxgr · 3h ago
Amazing!
Now if Amazon could also fix the incredibly frustrating, long-standing bug of their iOS app where tapping the screen anywhere does not turn pages, but instead toggles through "page numbers" -> "time left in chapter" -> "time left in book" etc., I'd be happy with it.
FireBeyond · 1h ago
Anywhere?
I've never seen that bug. Now, if you tap it near the bottom on the left-hand side, it toggles through that, by design (just as it does on the Kindle tablets)...
havaloc · 3h ago
If Apple eventually wins their appeal think among how hard it will be to put the genie back in the bottle.
goosedragons · 3h ago
Gonna be a looot of apps refusing to update.
snkzxbs · 3h ago
I suppose they can just take them down.
xp84 · 3h ago
They can, and then they’ll have to face their customers directly with it being exactly clear (even to “normies” who don’t follow obscure tech news like this) exactly whose greedy fingers are taking things away from them.
Up till now, situations like Kindle were just weird quirks to most people and most people wouldn’t have been able to tell you why you can’t do this very normal-seeming thing on iOS. If/when Apple takes it away, it’ll be obvious to everyone what’s going on.
threeseed · 2h ago
There are plenty of no longer supported apps on people's phones.
No one is blaming Apple for it.
goosedragons · 1h ago
I think it'd be a bit different if Kindle, Spotify, Netflix and co. all suddenly stopped working/got worse.
FireBeyond · 1h ago
And if Apple yoinks them out, then why should the developer respect the "no disparagement" or "no telling your customers about payment/alternatives"? Which to me was always the ultimate expression of Apple absolutely knowing they are being greedy. Not just "You can't tell your customers you can pay less elsewhere", but "You can't even tell your customers about our involvement in your pricing decisions".
granzymes · 3h ago
If this significantly cannibalizes Apple’s App Store revenue I would actually expect that they come up with a different way to monetize (maybe based on installs or number of users).
They could also implement that independent of the injunction, which applies to steering rules.
geoffpado · 3h ago
> They could also implement that independent of the injunction, which applies to steering rules.
They actually can't, not with the latest ruling that unlocked this Kindle change. Apple annoyed the judge enough with their shenanigans that she shut this down, too. The ruling reads (emphasis mine): "Effective immediately Apple will no longer impede developers’ ability to communicate with users *nor will they levy or impose a new commission on off-app purchases*."
what · 2h ago
They can just charge you per install or update over some threshold. Which wouldn’t be a commission on off-app purchases.
madeofpalk · 1h ago
It cannot be overstated just how furious the judge is with Apple. I cannot imagine the judge will tolerate anything that undermines the spirit of the ruling.
crooked-v · 1h ago
Yeah, this is already in territory where he's pushing criminal prosecution referrals for Apple executives. It's well into "protect your own hide, personally, by making sure you comply with the ruling" for people making the decisions at Apple.
no_wizard · 2h ago
I'm surprised they haven't simply forced tiered pricing for their developer program.
You still need that to get on the platform. They could charge based on the relative size of the business. Why not charge Netflix 50K? They won't give up the platform and the consumer - even for Netflix - likely wouldn't enjoy going to the web browser exclusively.
Perhaps that pushes more PWA's but really, I doubt the big corps would balk at this.
Their scale would need to be exceedingly reasonable to keep the smaller shops from rioting though.
cyberax · 1h ago
Here's a thought: Apple should NOT be able to "monetize" third-party apps. At all. They have no right to the work of other people.
Apple wants to mandate a review? That's fine. Charge developers for the reviewers' time with a reasonable profit margin, and Apple _already_ charges $100 a year for access to the AppStore.
tmpz22 · 3h ago
If Apple penalized apps for having many users that would be cataclysmic to their platform, though I image they'd work out sweetheart deals with Facebook etc.
tantalor · 3h ago
It could be like a platform subscription fee, but the app developer pays instead of the user.
The justification would be something like, "a more equitable and transparent system that aligns costs with platform usage and developer access to the user base, while also potentially fostering a more diverse and competitive app ecosystem" (generated)
HenryBemis · 2h ago
I left Apple years ago, right on the battery-gate scandal. Since I'm in Android since, I imagine that if Google Play Store would introduce a fee to "a more equitable..." I would do all my 'shopping' to Aurora, APKPure, and others.
sixothree · 3h ago
One way or the other this is a seismic event for Apple. They did this to themselves though.
dhosek · 3h ago
I thought that the terms of the entitlement to be able to link to an external purchase point was that you still needed to offer IAP under Apple’s terms. Did I misunderstand that?
zacwest · 3h ago
Except for 'reader apps' (those that sell digital content, basically) which Amazon is. Plus, Apple's rules are applied unevenly; Amazon is a giant WebView on Apple TV but it's disallowed for everybody else.
lxgr · 3h ago
As far as I understand, what "reader apps" were allowed to do was to display content purchased elsewhere in the first place, which is orthogonal to being/not being allowed to link to external purchases, no?
zacwest · 2h ago
These are the changes that Apple was forced to make, specifically referencing 3.1.3 (Other Purchase Methods) and 3.1.3(a) (“Reader” Apps):
> 3.1.3: The prohibition on encouraging users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase does not apply on the United States storefront.
> 3.1.3(a): The External Link Account entitlement is not required for apps on the United States storefront to include buttons, external links, or other calls to action.
The bit about the (formerly required in the US) entitlement is:
> 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.
They required you use a trackingless, generic URL that was unvarying per user, so you probably didn't run into it super often. Offhand, the Kobo app did use it.
ezfe · 3h ago
No, there are no conditions on linking out except that Apple can choose to show an alert along the lines of "You are leaving the app to open a webpage in Safari"
modeless · 3h ago
Did you miss the recent court ruling that said Apple is not allowed to restrict developers from linking to external payments systems at all?
Coeur · 3h ago
update: thanks for the clarifications!
Unfortunately the article does not answer what the button does, which is quite relevant.
Does it send the user to the amazon website (which would be allowed under the new rule)? Or does it complete the purchase inside the app using the credit card Amazon has on file for the user without paying Apple anything (which would be quite the affront towards Apple)?
lb1lf · 3h ago
It does indeed open your web browser and send you to the book's page on the Kindle store. Just checked. (Kindle for iPhone v7.31.3)
lxgr · 3h ago
Wow, really? That's frustrating.
I'd have expected it to actually make the purchase using my card on file with my Amazon account, just like the physical Kindle does.
nik_0_0 · 2h ago
That one Apple is still allowed to collect fees on (which I'd love to see the provided justification for!).
Per the article: "Apple can no longer collect a 27 percent commission on purchases made outside of apps or restrict how developers can direct users to alternate payment options"
This now allows folks to direct users to alternate methods. Before this the Kindle app would just say something along the lines of "you can't get a book here, please use the website".
derefr · 3h ago
You missed it; the article does answer this.
> By selecting ‘Get Book’ within the Kindle for iOS app, customers can now complete their purchase through their mobile web browser.
victorantos · 3h ago
Let's be clear: Amazon isn't doing this out of the goodness of their heart or to "provide customers the most convenient experience possible." They're grudgingly complying with a court order while Apple appeals. That spokesperson's PR spin is laughable.
The fact that it took LEGAL ACTION to get basic functionality that existed on Kindle e-readers from day one speaks volumes about how these tech giants operate. They'll happily degrade user experience to avoid paying each other's extortionate fees while pretending it's about "ecosystem integrity" or some other corporate doublespeak.
And let's not forget Apple's brilliant solution to the court ruling - a slightly smaller 27% tax instead of 30%! How generous! This whole situation perfectly illustrates the duopoly stranglehold that's been choking app developers for years.
The most telling part? Amazon "probably isn't going to change its mind about avoiding Apple's 30 percent cut." So even with the court ruling, we're still stuck with a half-measure solution because two trillion-dollar companies can't figure out how to play nice without extracting maximum profit at users' expense.
Wake me up when either of these companies actually puts user experience ahead of their bottom line.
lozenge · 3h ago
Why are you both sidesing this? It's Apple who has been given a court order and Apple who have refused to come to a reasonable compromise with Amazon.
ec109685 · 3h ago
Do you mean Apple isn’t doing this out of the goodness of their heart?
dmitrygr · 3h ago
App Store revenue was a significant source of income for Apple. Money that paid for development of iPhone and iOS. I don’t know what sort of idiotic thinking it takes to imagine that they won’t need to find another way to recapture that money. It will probably come in the form of higher costs for development licenses, or hardware. For example, absolutely nothing stops them from charging you for using the SDK. No one said it had to be free.
Everyone screaming about how happy they are about this seem to be ignoring the fact that Apple is not a charity
viraptor · 3h ago
Apple is doing fine. They have crazy profit margins on everything, but especially on hardware upgrades. They're one of the most cash hoarding tech giants and that's still after the stock buybacks. It's fine, they're not going to suddenly run out.
Also this is an article about Kindle adding an option which wasn't there before. Apple wasn't getting the money either way.
blibble · 3h ago
it was an unlawful source of income that they should have never had
they're lucky they're not being made to pay it all back, plus interest
lurk2 · 3h ago
> Money that paid for development of iPhone and iOS.
iOS has gotten progressively worse every year since 2012. It may not be the worst idea to turn off the tap.
wordofx · 3h ago
How is it worse? It’s better now for me than years ago.
lurk2 · 2h ago
Off the top of my head:
- Substantially poorer performance
- Keyboard is less accurate
- YouTube videos can’t be played on the lock screen without some tricks
- Apple Maps (it is basically at parity now, however).
- Translate feature doesn’t have a copy button
- The storage bug
- No option for manual cache clearing
- SMB protocol doesn’t work with Windows and doesn’t display error messages
- File transfers are substantially more complicated than they used to be because they want you to pay for iCloud (the workaround here is installing VLC which gives you a drag-and-drop folder you can use through iTunes)
- Multitasking (apps should shut down after some time spent idle, instead they have to be manually closed)
I haven’t used the most recent versions of iOS so I don’t know if some of these have been addressed.
burnerthrow008 · 1h ago
> - YouTube videos can’t be played on the lock screen without some tricks
Waiwaiwait. Hold the phone.
That’s GOOGLE’s decision, not Apple’s. This whole thread is a circle jerk about how Apple doesn’t let developers do what they want. It’s a general purpose computer and all that. This is an example of what happens when Apple doesn’t prevent developers from doing something anti-consumer.
lurk2 · 44m ago
We can ignore that one, then, but my understanding was that the functionality has been disabled twice; first by Apple, and later by YouTube. I could be wrong, though, it's been almost 15 years.
xp84 · 3h ago
“Paid for the development”
This comes off as incredibly bought-in to Apple PR, and if you’re not on their payroll, I don’t understand why you’re carrying water for them so aggressively.
First of all, the incredibly high margin hardware more than “pays for” the development of all the parts that make that hardware useful including iOS. We all know this.
Apple makes a tremendous amount of profit, both gross and net. This will dent their top line and their bottom line a bit. It will not make the iPhone a money-losing platform. “Not making as much pure profit as your near-monopoly status might theoretically allow you to if there were no antitrust laws” does not imply “that money will have to be made up somewhere.” They may end up being only “wildly, amazingly profitable” instead of “wildly, absurdly, amazingly profitable.” They don’t “have to” make up any particular amount of money.
Whether that upsets their shareholders including their mega billionaire CEO, is just the breaks. It is quite fitting for a group of people who enjoyed all those amazing profits from Apple’s monopolistic behavior so far — money that I might point out, isn’t even being required to be paid back.
int_19h · 2h ago
Apple platforms are already kind of notorious for having the highest price sticker to develop/publish apps for.
mmastrac · 3h ago
The billions of dollars in cash beg to disagree with you. I don't think they are hurting for money.
dmitrygr · 1h ago
Nor am I. But if my boss cuts my salary I’ll still fight back.
bigyabai · 3h ago
The development of the iPhone and iOS is payed-for in the exact same way it is on MacOS. With the outrageous hardware margins Apple commands, profiting hundreds of dollars off each unit sold.
If Apple wins appeal, they’ll happily and quickly reinstate the fees. It’ll be the app developers who then get stuck paying the fees because, as you mentioned, their users will be used to it and there’s no going back.
4 years ago some people were still swallowing the security or privacy argument, and users didn't understand what they were missing. This time any of these facades will be broken to death.
For instance up until now you probably refused to register to Netflix or any other system that manages payments and subscription outside of Apple, and you can keep doing so.
Same way you probably didn't register PayPal integration that would have shifted part of the cancellation/refunds to PayPal. You of course didn't integrate PayPay either.
Basically you can keep being Apple only, as you always did. From the discovery documents, Apple didn't seem to give a damn about these and only discussed revenue regarding their policies, but you're free to see what you want in Apple's behavior.
(Admittedly, I'm now waiting for the stories of users being surprised when they paid their FartTorchPRO app subscription via paypal.ru and finding their credit card details all over the darkweb.)
https://bsky.app/profile/gergely.pragmaticengineer.com/post/...
I am not shedding any tears over developers not being able to nag me about why I’m cancelling, for example.
Same goes for all the shenanigans mentioned about variable pricing for different users.
I think a lot of devs are out of touch with what customers want: transparent pricing, easy cancellation, not worrying about the store running off with my credit card. How the costs are split up between Apple and the devs is jury not something anyone cares about.
Amazon has an incredibly generous return policy. This is a strange argument to make for the Kindle app.
I don't recall that defense saving Microsoft back in the day.
If it’s about security and privacy only, demand the ability to check out in an app using Apple’s own payment platform. Watch Apple squirm.
As for the subscription convenience, I know how to make this even better. Let’s give Visa and Stripe a monopoly on all transactions, and then have them build a unified subscription portal. Awesomeness!
I'm curious about what happened.
They will blame the app developers for raising prices.
By the effort developers putting into payment-flows I would say they aren't, but depending on the volume it could be purely for short-term gain.
Which, presumably, means their legal teams examine the case and think that the appeal won't succeed.
Though there is always the possibility that it was relatively inexpensive to implement, and the increased sales in the meanwhile during the legal battle will outweigh the cost of changing it.
Your discoverability is massively impaired, we already knew that. You also give Apple 30% of your cash.
Free app + external web purchase = maximum discoverability at 0% tax.
When things get more advanced, that web purchase link will be an authenticated URL - meaning one click to open the web browser already logged in. Register a protocol handler, remember their card information (or, ironically, use Apple Pay), and one tap in the app, a flash of the web browser, and they’re back in the app with purchase complete.
Apple needs to address this at WWDC. In the US and EU, there are zero, heck, negative advantages of selling on the App Store. All pain, all fees, no benefit of any kind. That’s a big deal.
No one but irrelevant nerds think this. And the market has demonstrated this time and time again.
Most people think of phones as being console-like entertainment devices. And aren't interested in scams, malware, virus checkers etc that are needed in a free for all model.
And on iOS there are no virus protection apps, period.
b) Buying a product through IAP is one click. Versus having to go to a signup page, provide details, enter credit card details, wait for credit card verification flows etc. The drop off in conversions during this can be often greater than 15%.
c) Apple's centralised subscription management has been extremely useful and consumer friendly. Versus having to now deal with NY Times style scam tactics for every subscription again.
For C, customers can choose to continue using Apple's subscription management if they think it's worth the 30% premium that Apple charges. Or Apple could reduce the price to something more reasonable (Stripe Billing offers a similar feature set and costs 0.7%).
I love having a single dashboard for all my subscriptions and having an easy way to cancel them.
I’m sure it’s substantial over the years. As for point C, I really don’t care, every monopoly has had at least some advantages. We could make this even better by giving Visa a monopoly and having them build a web portal.
Higher conversion rate.
Niche app that sells at a higher price than your average app. Ie my users have disposable income but the Android users don’t like to pay for higher prices apps like the iOS users will.
Also, problem solved, just use Apple Pay on the checkout page. Ironic, but royalty free, and one-click to enable in Stripe.
No comments yet
Bottom line: I wouldn’t expect many discounts here.
Plenty of them already do. Google's services (YouTube Premium and others), for example, are $5/mo more expensive if you purchase them via Apple IAP. Spotify memberships are 30% more expensive on Apple. There are countless other examples. They just weren't allowed to advertise the cheaper option on iOS until now.
Even if a particular list price doesn’t change, I’d expect more frequent and deeper sales.
In a less competitive market for a good or service (due to lack of antitrust enforcement) there should still be discounts, in proportion to the residual competitiveness. E.g. the mobile game market is very competitive, so I’d expect more discounts vs. the video entertainment market where there has been a lot of aggregation.
I've also heard Netflix has suspended all in app subscriptions and is only going to link to their website for sign ups. I'm unsure if that will translate into savings, but I suspect you're going to see more of this behavior as well.
The 30% / 15% tax is very real and companies that don't have to pay that will be better positioned in the long run, so I imagine even if the price is the same, they'll be able to pocket more revenue doing this as well
I suspect this won't affect games much, except for the exceedingly big ones like Fortnite, but I treat that as a whole separate sector at this point.
What, why? They can complete the purchase flow in a browser instead of the app. What is lost?
In general I think centralized stores are customer friendly but anti developer. As a less controversial example, see how many gamers will wait months or years for a game to leave the Epic game store and go on Steam.
I'm not convinced;
Planned obsolescence, repair issues, phone-home privacy issues, vendor lock-in, etc
Apple is certainly innovative which helps consumers, but that's about it. The rest is bare minimum for the price point.
It's literally a major difference in their fundamental business models.
Now if Amazon could also fix the incredibly frustrating, long-standing bug of their iOS app where tapping the screen anywhere does not turn pages, but instead toggles through "page numbers" -> "time left in chapter" -> "time left in book" etc., I'd be happy with it.
I've never seen that bug. Now, if you tap it near the bottom on the left-hand side, it toggles through that, by design (just as it does on the Kindle tablets)...
Up till now, situations like Kindle were just weird quirks to most people and most people wouldn’t have been able to tell you why you can’t do this very normal-seeming thing on iOS. If/when Apple takes it away, it’ll be obvious to everyone what’s going on.
No one is blaming Apple for it.
They could also implement that independent of the injunction, which applies to steering rules.
They actually can't, not with the latest ruling that unlocked this Kindle change. Apple annoyed the judge enough with their shenanigans that she shut this down, too. The ruling reads (emphasis mine): "Effective immediately Apple will no longer impede developers’ ability to communicate with users *nor will they levy or impose a new commission on off-app purchases*."
You still need that to get on the platform. They could charge based on the relative size of the business. Why not charge Netflix 50K? They won't give up the platform and the consumer - even for Netflix - likely wouldn't enjoy going to the web browser exclusively.
Perhaps that pushes more PWA's but really, I doubt the big corps would balk at this.
Their scale would need to be exceedingly reasonable to keep the smaller shops from rioting though.
Apple wants to mandate a review? That's fine. Charge developers for the reviewers' time with a reasonable profit margin, and Apple _already_ charges $100 a year for access to the AppStore.
The justification would be something like, "a more equitable and transparent system that aligns costs with platform usage and developer access to the user base, while also potentially fostering a more diverse and competitive app ecosystem" (generated)
> 3.1.3: The prohibition on encouraging users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase does not apply on the United States storefront.
> 3.1.3(a): The External Link Account entitlement is not required for apps on the United States storefront to include buttons, external links, or other calls to action.
The bit about the (formerly required in the US) entitlement is:
> 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.
They required you use a trackingless, generic URL that was unvarying per user, so you probably didn't run into it super often. Offhand, the Kobo app did use it.
Unfortunately the article does not answer what the button does, which is quite relevant.
Does it send the user to the amazon website (which would be allowed under the new rule)? Or does it complete the purchase inside the app using the credit card Amazon has on file for the user without paying Apple anything (which would be quite the affront towards Apple)?
I'd have expected it to actually make the purchase using my card on file with my Amazon account, just like the physical Kindle does.
Per the article: "Apple can no longer collect a 27 percent commission on purchases made outside of apps or restrict how developers can direct users to alternate payment options"
This now allows folks to direct users to alternate methods. Before this the Kindle app would just say something along the lines of "you can't get a book here, please use the website".
> By selecting ‘Get Book’ within the Kindle for iOS app, customers can now complete their purchase through their mobile web browser.
The fact that it took LEGAL ACTION to get basic functionality that existed on Kindle e-readers from day one speaks volumes about how these tech giants operate. They'll happily degrade user experience to avoid paying each other's extortionate fees while pretending it's about "ecosystem integrity" or some other corporate doublespeak.
And let's not forget Apple's brilliant solution to the court ruling - a slightly smaller 27% tax instead of 30%! How generous! This whole situation perfectly illustrates the duopoly stranglehold that's been choking app developers for years.
The most telling part? Amazon "probably isn't going to change its mind about avoiding Apple's 30 percent cut." So even with the court ruling, we're still stuck with a half-measure solution because two trillion-dollar companies can't figure out how to play nice without extracting maximum profit at users' expense.
Wake me up when either of these companies actually puts user experience ahead of their bottom line.
Everyone screaming about how happy they are about this seem to be ignoring the fact that Apple is not a charity
Also this is an article about Kindle adding an option which wasn't there before. Apple wasn't getting the money either way.
they're lucky they're not being made to pay it all back, plus interest
iOS has gotten progressively worse every year since 2012. It may not be the worst idea to turn off the tap.
- Substantially poorer performance
- Keyboard is less accurate
- YouTube videos can’t be played on the lock screen without some tricks
- Apple Maps (it is basically at parity now, however).
- Translate feature doesn’t have a copy button
- The storage bug
- No option for manual cache clearing
- SMB protocol doesn’t work with Windows and doesn’t display error messages
- File transfers are substantially more complicated than they used to be because they want you to pay for iCloud (the workaround here is installing VLC which gives you a drag-and-drop folder you can use through iTunes)
- Multitasking (apps should shut down after some time spent idle, instead they have to be manually closed)
I haven’t used the most recent versions of iOS so I don’t know if some of these have been addressed.
Waiwaiwait. Hold the phone.
That’s GOOGLE’s decision, not Apple’s. This whole thread is a circle jerk about how Apple doesn’t let developers do what they want. It’s a general purpose computer and all that. This is an example of what happens when Apple doesn’t prevent developers from doing something anti-consumer.
This comes off as incredibly bought-in to Apple PR, and if you’re not on their payroll, I don’t understand why you’re carrying water for them so aggressively.
First of all, the incredibly high margin hardware more than “pays for” the development of all the parts that make that hardware useful including iOS. We all know this.
Apple makes a tremendous amount of profit, both gross and net. This will dent their top line and their bottom line a bit. It will not make the iPhone a money-losing platform. “Not making as much pure profit as your near-monopoly status might theoretically allow you to if there were no antitrust laws” does not imply “that money will have to be made up somewhere.” They may end up being only “wildly, amazingly profitable” instead of “wildly, absurdly, amazingly profitable.” They don’t “have to” make up any particular amount of money.
Whether that upsets their shareholders including their mega billionaire CEO, is just the breaks. It is quite fitting for a group of people who enjoyed all those amazing profits from Apple’s monopolistic behavior so far — money that I might point out, isn’t even being required to be paid back.