Apple revises its US App Store rules to let developers link to outside payment methods, but will charge a 27% commission, or 12% for small business developers

In light of the US Supreme Court denying to hear Apple's appeal in its legal battle with Epic Games, Apple has announced a handful …

9to5Mac 2024-01-17 Chance Miller

Discussion

@benedictevans Benedict Evans on threads
There are ‘choice screens’ and then there are ‘scare screens’. This is what Apple requires if your app links external payments, as required under the new anti-steering judgement. I wonder how much the FTC/DoJ and EU will have to say about this - remember browser ballot screens?
@carnage4life Dare Obasanjo on threads
This is the same energy as Apple ATT. Everything on this page is technically true but the entire subtext is Apple is scaring the user into buying the in-app purchase on their iPhone where they get a 30% cut instead of on the web when the developer has linked to their website. …
@dignifiedpauper Michael James Toland on threads
This is absolutely unhinged. If you don't use Apple Pay, they are still going to charge a commission on the app. While I understand that they are providing the hosting platform for the app, this fee is absolutely outrageous.
@chancehmiller Chance Miller on threads
This is the pop-up warning you'll see when you tap on a link/button to an external payment option in an iPhone or iPad app.
@tomwarrenuk Tom Warren on threads
Apple's App Store policies now let US developers link to outside payments. Apple is still taking a 27 percent cut though, so there's essentially no difference for devs by the time they've paid payment processing fees elsewhere. What a farce https://www.theverge.com/...
@eshumarneedi @eshumarneedi on threads
Top-tier pettiness. ★★★★★
@documentingmeta @documentingmeta on threads
wait what's the point of alternative payments if Apple is still gonna take 27% ?
@rustyshelf@mastodon.social Russell Ivanovic on mastodon
Feels like malicious compliance at it's worst. I can't wait for the heat to get turned up on Apple and Google App Stores this year because their current “concession” is pure nonsense (they still want 27% if you click that dialog and buy within a 7 day window...WTF): — https://…
@timsweeneyepic Tim Sweeney on x
A quick summary of glaring problems we've found so far: 1) Apple has introduced an anticompetitive new 27% tax on web purchases...2) Apple dictates all aspects of these links and doesn't allow them in the app's ordinary payment flow... 3) Apple requires developers to open a gener…
@nixcraft @nixcraft on x
Apple: U.S. developers can now offer a Non-App Store purchasing option. However, Apple will still collect a 27% fee on user purchases instead of 30%. Classic Apple. Apple is like, “I'm altering the deal; pray that I don't change it further. Take it or leave it.” Lmao
@tomwarren Tom Warren on x
Apple's App Store policies now let US developers link to outside payments. Apple is still taking a 27 percent cut though, so there's essentially no difference for devs by the time they've paid payment processing fees elsewhere. What a farce https://www.theverge.com/...
@timsweeneyepic Tim Sweeney on x
Apple filed a bad-faith “compliance” plan for the District Court's injunction. It totally undermines the order allowing “buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to IAP”. https://developer.apple.com/ ...
@kieranmch Kieran McHugh on x
I sincerely hope the @CMAgovUK are taking a very hard look at this.
@dalmaer Dion Almaer on x
🤮 The greed is next level.
@deepakshenoy Deepak Shenoy on x
The need for an independent app store just increases by the day.
@mattdesl Matt DesLauriers on x
the insane Apple app store payment policies continue
@umanghome Umang on x
What an absolutely malicious company
@sperand_io Chris Sperandio on x
Management of these entitlements, transaction logs, and verified reporting automation is a Stripe Marketplace App waiting to be built.
@iwelsh Ian Welsh on x
Need to get serious about these things, and start putting board members and senior executives in prison, and not the minimum security ones, either. They fuck around because they know there are no real consequences for them for doing so. Put Tim Cook in prison.
@cliffski @cliffski on x
The fact that apple want 30% of all app store revenue and 27% of any revenue from a website linked to from apps, just proves outright that apple products must be absolute junk. If you make good products and services, you don't have to resort to this kind of bullshit.
@maxmusing Max Musing on x
reduces your apple fees from 30% to 27%, just enough to cover your 2.9% stripe fees
@games_fray @games_fray on x
It's outrageous that #Apple wants to tax *web* purchases (at a 27% rate!) only because an iOS app links users to an external website (and the digital items may then be consumed in an iOS app). But guess who did something similar long before Apple? #Sony #PlayStation. 🧵1/2
@colleenklein Colleen Sullivan on x
For anyone surprised that Apple will charge 27% commissions on purchases made via outlinking - you shouldn't be! This is how Apple operates, with games being disproportionately impacted. I write extensively on this very topic in Ch. 7 of It's All a Game: https://messari.io/...
@eric_seufert Eric Seufert on x
Resurfacing this thread in light of Apple's declaration that it will charge a 27% fee on all payments generated from in-app clicks to a web shop, following the Supreme Court's decision to not hear its appeal.
@cocoanetics @cocoanetics on x
Apple updated the rules to allow for external purchase links on the US App Store. Hopes to not having to pay Apple a share of sales via external purchase links have been destroyed: Apple still gets 27% of proceeds !!! https://developer.apple.com/ ... [image]
@mryalamanchi @mryalamanchi on x
apple takes: - dev fees, yearly - 30% on iOS and equivalent - 27% on web purchases - royalties on devices built for MFi etc. the finance team of apple is mad tbh.
@milesjennings Miles Jennings on x
Apple's take rate on purchases (27% to 30%!!) benefits from the same deception many countries use to hide their excessive value added taxes (VAT) — It's priced in and the user never sees it. Companies should start itemizing prices to show users what Apple's greed costs them.
@jierlich @jierlich on x
A shameful abuse of monopoly power @tim_cook how do you justify this?
@aeyakovenko @aeyakovenko on x
This @solanamobile 2️⃣ marketing campaign is really getting out of hand
@karelvuong Karel Vuong on x
Oh hey you can now add links to external storefronts! ... but hey also we take 27% on all purchases + the right to audit your books or you're de-platformed. What could have been a big win for web3 games no longer the case. 🤪
@jason_kint Jason Kint on x
I have good news for Google and Facebook's paid shill armies. You know much energy I put towards documenting their data and market power abuses over the last decade? I'm about shift it. I was patient due to Apple's privacy leadership but no longer. This is insanity. 1/2 [image]
@eric_seufert Eric Seufert on x
Apple charging a 3% discount on IAPs for web payments from in-app links should not be a surprise: this is exactly what they do in the Netherlands where the competition authority allows that. From 2022: Apple to developers: Heads I win, tails you lose https://mobiledevmemo.com/...
@carnage4life Dare Obasanjo on x
Apple does it again. Every time saw law is passed that says Apple should allow developers to use 3rd party payments like Stripe to avoid paying the App Store fee, Apple says sure but we'll still charge 27% which after Stripe's 2.99% is back to a 30% cut. https://9to5mac.com/...
@dhh @dhh on x
This update all just dropped together with this notice from the Apple Developer program, in response to them losing the appeal on that one win from the Epic case. So now they have to allow external links, but can, and thus will, make them completely unviable. Hurray justice! [ima…
@mgsiegler M.G. Siegler on x
Well that was fast... [image]
@eric_seufert Eric Seufert on x
5/ Apple's response to the Supreme Court's decision to not take up its appeal (meaning: it must allow app-to-web links) is utterly consistent with its policies in the Netherlands and South Korea, and with Google's policy concerning the DMA.
@keleftheriou Kosta Eleftheriou on x
Thank you, Tim, for continuing to fight for what's right. Apple's malicious compliance must not stand.
@parkerortolani Parker Ortolani on x
here's that thing you wanted but we made it terrible
@carnage4life Dare Obasanjo on x
This is the same energy as Apple ATT. Everything on this page is technically true but the entire subtext is Apple is scaring the user into buying the in-app purchase on their iPhone where they get a 30% cut instead of on the web when the developer has linked to their website. [im…
@rjonesy Ryan Jones on x
Judge: “Apple cannot disallow Apps to link to other payment methods” Apple: lolz. Ok, we'll take 27% and... [image]
@dhh @dhh on x
Can you imagine if Google wanted 27% of any sales that resulted from anyone visiting your store after finding you in their search engine?? AND the right to audit your books to ensure they got their rake?? AND THE THREAT TO KICK YOU OFF GOOGLE IF YOU DIDN'T COMPLY? Nuts.
@mgsiegler M.G. Siegler on x
I can't figure out which is more wild, that it has been 3 and a half years since I wrote this, or that Apple basically hasn't changed much (at least in the US) until today. And the link-out thing is just the most obvious, blatant, and bare minimum thing. https://500ish.com/...
@bzamayo Benjamin Mayo on x
The quote that rings truer than ever https://twitter.com/...
@dhh @dhh on x
I kinda feel bad for whoever had to do all this work on these App Store “entitlements” at Apple, since they've been designed to be so poisonous that nobody would ever be crazy enough to use them. The ultimate in bullshit work on behalf of the empire.
@florian4gamers Florian Mueller on x
At this point I believe that the district court (and it will then move higher up again) should hold Apple in contempt as this goes against the injunction as it was issued. However, in the hypothetical scenario it doesn't, someone might have to bring a NEW case over the 27%.
@dhh @dhh on x
Epic is going to contest this bad-faith compliance with the ruling in court. Bless @TimSweeneyEpic and @MarkRein for their stamina and willingness to spend their treasure fighting this abusive bullshit. FORZA FORTNITE 😄🤘 https://x.com/...
@dhh @dhh on x
@TimSweeneyEpic @MarkRein Apple's response to the court ordering them to allow app makers the right to link outside of the App Store has the same energy as Bill Gates arguing the definition of “a definition” in the 1998 antitrust depositions: https://www.youtube.com/...
@florian4gamers Florian Mueller on x
The statement here at the end means the #EpicGames v. #Apple litigation is NOT over. The merits part is over. There is an injunction, there won't be anything more than that; nor anything less. But the litigation isn't over. It's moved from the merits to the ENFORCEMENT stage!
@games_fray @games_fray on x
#Apple wants #EpicGames to reimburse $73 MILLION AND COUNTING (the dispute isn't over yet) in litigation expenses. Apple says it's spent $82,971,401 defending against that case, adjusts it to $81,560,362, then deducts 10% as Epic prevailed on 1 of 10 counts ➡️ $73,404,326. 🧵1/4 […
@games_fray @games_fray on x
Apple bases this indemnification claim on Epic's breach of the developer agreement (DPLA) when Fortnite suddenly offered an in-app payment alternative. Early into the litigation, Epic accepted that if it loses on its antitrust claims (as it did), it owes damages. 🧵2/4
@timsweeneyepic Tim Sweeney on x
The latest Apple nonsense highlights a basic principle: developers must be free to develop the best software they can. No platform maker should have the power to force them to develop intentionally bad software to protect the platform maker's unjust profit stream.
@jezcorden Jez on x
My God.😳
@florian4gamers Florian Mueller on x
Epic's own litigation expenses for this overall effort against Apple and Google were in the hundreds of millions of dollars. @TimSweeneyEpic once replied to someone that an indie couldn't afford a multi-hundred-million-dollar campaign. And: no iOS Fortnite revenues for years.
@games_fray @games_fray on x
If Epic had prevailed on antitrust, the contract clause wouldn't have been enforceable. So the dispute was not about whether Epic owed damages. Still, Apple says it had those costs defending against the underlying antitrust claims on which the damages claim depended. 🧵3/4
@games_fray @games_fray on x
Apple does this as a matter of principle. They won't leave an amount in the tens of millions on the table. And their overall treatment of Epic, such as not putting Fortnite back, is meant to discourage other app makers from challenging Apple and from breaching the DPLA. 🧵4/4
@timsweeneyepic Tim Sweeney on x
The Supreme Court denied both sides' appeals of the Epic v. Apple antitrust case. The court battle to open iOS to competing stores and payments is lost in the United States. A sad outcome for all developers.
@timsweeneyepic Tim Sweeney on x
Now the District Court's injunction against Apple's anti-steering rule is in effect, and developers can include in their apps “buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to IAP”.
@timsweeneyepic Tim Sweeney on x
As of today, developers can begin exercising their court-established right to tell US customers about better prices on the web. These awful Apple-mandated confusion screens are over and done forever. [image]
@timsweeneyepic Tim Sweeney on x
The fight goes on. Regulators are taking action and policymakers around the world are passing new laws to end Apple's illegal and anticompetitive app store practices. The European Union's Digital Markets Act goes into effect March 7.
@dhh @dhh on x
Apple is going to poison the one victory Epic secured in their lawsuit so bad nobody would ever think to use it. They want a 27%(!!!!) commission on any link from an app to a website, reporting every few weeks, AND the right to audit your books?? Insane. [image]
@munster_gene Gene Munster on x
The question for bigger developers: Does using $AAPL's payment system increase conversion by more than 30%? Answer: Maybe. I believe larger developers have stronger brands that can motivate people to transact off platform.
@macton93 Michael Acton on x
#Apple #Epic - after SCOTUS passed on reviewing the case, Apple has to comply with federal court injunction over ‘steering.’ Has changed its App Store review guidelines, but Epic says the solution is in bad faith and will fight in court. So this case isn't completely over...
@eric_seufert Eric Seufert on x
The problem for developers with this outcome — which is that Apple can no longer block in-app links to web-based account management portals — is that Apple (and Google) can still charge a fee on external purchases, as I detail here: https://mobiledevmemo.com/...
@carnage4life Dare Obasanjo on x
Epic has lost its last shot at getting Apple's App Store on iOS declared a monopoly as the Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal. This means Epic only had one win; Apple can't stop devs from telling users IAP are cheaper outside the App Store. https://www.bloomberg.com/..…
@games_fray @games_fray on x
ANALYSIS: Epic's California injunction against Apple's anti-steering rule takes effect as Supreme Court denies both parties' petitions Apple fended off the largest & most important parts of Epic's case but maybe the DOJ or someone else will revive them. https://gamesfray.com/...
@rizstanford Riz Virk on x
This is pretty ridiculous - if ever there was a monopoly in us tech that deserved to be broken up, or which was using it's platform power inappropriately to cut out any competition, it's apple's App Store on iOS devices .... I spent the greater part of ten years working in that e…
@stephentotilo Stephen Totilo on x
The Supreme Court will not hear Epic and Apple's appeals of the decision in the Fortnite case. That leaves things mostly as an Apple win. But with one court order in Epic's favor that requires Apple to allow developers to point app users to external payment methods [image]
@games_fray @games_fray on x
The #EpicGames v. #Apple judgment is now FINAL. The Supreme Court has denied either party's petition for review. This means the anti-anti-steering injunction that Epic won under California Unfair Competition Law enters into force. Apple wanted to prevent or delay that. 🧵1/4 [imag…
@florian4gamers Florian Mueller on x
I totally support Epic Games' fight for app freedom. It feels bad they've won something that will benefit *others*, not them: Apple doesn't have to put Fortnite back on the App Store. Epic's fate reminds me of soccer player and EU antitrust plaintiff Jean-Marc Bosman: 🧵1/2
@florian4gamers Florian Mueller on x
This is a very complex situation. There are reasons for which Epic would have needed a Supreme Court review more, but also reasons for which Apple won't like this outcome. The anti-anti-steering injunction allows app makers to promote alternative purchasing methods (WWW, Android)
@drbarnard David Barnard on x
Gonna be fascinating to see what Apple actually allows and then the legal battles that ensue to parse the injunction. Also whether or not Apple is going to take a stab at requiring developers pay 27% of revenue generated like they do in South Korea and the Netherlands. [image]
@florian4gamers Florian Mueller on x
Gamers should know that Apple generates substantially greater profits from games than any game maker in the world. And Apple has never made a game, at least none that any of us would know. It's just its monopoly power that allows it to tax the games industry.
@kaelandc Kaelan Deese on x
NEW: Supreme Court declines to get involved in an effort by Epic Games to have them review a lower court ruling in an antitrust case. Epic says Apple unfairly monopolizes the mobile app space with its iOS software and its in-app purchasing system. [image]

Chronicles

Apple revises its US App Store rules to let developers link to outside payment methods, but will charge a 27% commission, or 12% for small business developers

Related Coverage

Discussion