Apple's $100M settlement lets devs tell users about alt payment options using contact info from iOS app, but still won't allow adding the info inside the app
YGR — will need to approve the settlement. It also very clearly attempts to answer some concerns about steering raised during trial. Tip @Techmeme https://www.cnet.com/... Benedict Evans / @benedictevans : This is also inevitable, and it won't stop here. The whole 30% requirement is going away. Benedict Evans / @benedictevans : But this ‘no solicitation’ rule is in all the antitrust proposals and an important part of the Spotify case - the Spotify iOS app isn't allowed to tell you how to get an account. See also Mediagazer
The Verge
Context & Ripple Effects
Apple is settling the US developer class action rather than litigating it, and the terms are deliberately narrow: developers may use contact information gathered inside their own iOS apps to tell customers about cheaper payment options elsewhere — but they still cannot put that information in the app itself, and Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers must approve the deal before it takes effect.
The carve-out speaks directly to the steering question raised at trial: as Benedict Evans noted in the related commentary, the same 'no solicitation' rule sits at the center of the antitrust proposals and of the Spotify dispute, where Spotify's iOS app isn't allowed to explain how to sign up for an account. Apple has conceded the email channel while keeping the in-app surface closed.
First-order effects
US developers gain a legal path to email and otherwise contact customers about web-based purchases, converting App Store user relationships into direct billing relationships without paying Apple's commission on those transactions.
Apple keeps its most valuable restriction intact — no alternative-payment information inside the app — so the settlement changes where developers can pitch, not what appears on the storefront screen.
Second-order effects
Subscription apps like Netflix and Spotify now have a business case to build first-party email and account flows that route renewals off-platform, shifting recurring revenue out of Apple's 15–30% cut over time.
Because Judge Gonzalez Rogers must approve the settlement, its terms become a reference point for her parallel ruling on Apple's conduct, and for regulators weighing whether 'no solicitation' clauses survive scrutiny at all.
Third-order effects
If Evans' read holds — that 'the whole 30% requirement is going away' — the durable structure is a regulated take rate: platforms competing on services and defaults rather than on compulsory billing, with steering rights as the enforcement mechanism.
The split between 'you may contact them off-app' and 'you may not say it in-app' sets the template other gatekeepers will copy: concessions on channels they don't control, hard lines drawn exactly where user intent is highest.
The trend: App-store economics are moving from a compulsory 30% toll toward contestable gatekeeping, where regulators and courts force open communication channels between developers and users while platforms fight to keep the point of sale closed.
By accepting payment from Apple/not opting out, developers expressly agree to Apple's current commission structure for the App Store, including the Small Business Program, and release all claims against Apple that alleged the App Store is a monopoly and overcharged developers.
I thought I had experienced the full possible range of feelings regarding Apple and the App Store, but settling a lawsuit, promising absolutely nothing new as part of the settlement, and spinning that as some kind of big developer win, has brought me to exciting new mental places
You can't make this up. The class action lawyers are asking for a 30% fee or $30 million from the $100 million small app developer assistance fund. Same team that argued App Store's commission rate was excessive https://twitter.com/...
Notice to Developers: You Could Be Entitled to Between a $250 and $30,000 Payment From Apple https://www.macrumors.com/... by @rsgnl https://twitter.com/...
@cabel @stroughtonsmith It's baffling to me. Apple should know that the smart developers building great apps would see right through the spin. And developer sentiment isn't exactly something they can afford to continue actively working to undermine. https://twitter.com/...
Who is Major Concessions? A commander in the Store Wars perhaps? So far I can find Major Concessions only in headlines and not in court documents. Has anyone seen Major Concessions? Where is she? https://twitter.com/...
Disagree with this take, which paints Apple as the big winner in the settlement. While it's true that the company didn't significantly capitulate, devs gain the ability to price-incentivize transactions outside the App Store. I think that's huge. https://www.nytimes.com/...
If you want more evidence that Apple isn't just charitably giving developers free money, the $100 million settlement applies to US developers only. Why? Because that is where Apple got sued. Basically a giant slap to the face to devs with identical concerns outside of the US...
Doing more work on this Apple App Store news and feel nothing's going to change. For a consumer, the benefits of the App Store far outweigh any incremental costs. https://loupfunds.com/...
@cabel But now you'll be able to charge exactly 13.49 for an app! And they formally ceded that if our customers volunteer their email addresses to us, Apple can't practically stop us from emailing them! Thus resolving the two main challenges developers face on the App Store
Does push notification considered as “communications outside iOS app”? Can the app show a push notification and direct the user to in app browser for payments 🙃 https://twitter.com/...
Some of these Apple settlement stories are leaving misleading impressions. Read the minute details. There isn't much here. Don't fall for the spin. “Clarifying” about emailing is not a major concession. Allowing steering inside the app would have been, but Apple is NOT doing that
I'm tweeting a lot about this $100M settlement from Apple to US developers but I think there are big implications. If you accept $/don't opt out, you agree the App Store is not a monopoly as defined in the lawsuit. Apple said the class encompasses *99%* of developers in the US.
The fact that Apple will now “allow” developers to email their users to let them know where they can buy things from the developer is being treated as a massive concession is a testament to how far Apple has shifted the Overton Window on acceptable behavior by a platform owner.
Developers will be able to submit a claim on the settlement website when live (not sure when the page goes live): https://smallappdeveloperassistance.com / More details from the law firm: https://www.hbsslaw.com/...
man, this is just not a real win for developers. you can *maybe* communicate with your users about alternate payment options, but you still can't do any of this in the app! https://www.theverge.com/... https://twitter.com/...
How does “clarifying” translate to more flexibility?? “To give developers even more flexibility to reach their customers, Apple is also clarifying that developers can use communications, such as email, to share information about payment methods outside of their iOS app,” https://…
Some nuance. You apparently cannot have the alternative payment option in the app (eg bitcoin). You have to email the user and route him outside of it. Clunky. But first step. https://twitter.com/...
Apple PR has been doing confusing announcements recently lol You still can't link to other payment methods in-app, only email customers about them. https://twitter.com/...
Exactly 👇and why steering within the app is a likely remedy coming. Although only a handful of apps can pull that off and get customers to not use IAP. https://twitter.com/...
Interestingly, although it's separate from Apple's legal battle with Epic, the same judge — YGR — will need to approve the settlement. It also very clearly attempts to answer some concerns about steering raised during trial. Tip @Techmeme https://www.cnet.com/...