Apple's updated rules allowing web signup links appear to apply only to apps that don't make much money for Apple, like Netflix and Spotify

It's for apps that don't make Apple any money anyways — While vocal app developers accused Apple last week of spinning a lawsuit settlement …

The Verge 2021-09-03

Context & Ripple Effects

Apple's settlement-era [[a:970123|rule clarifications were already viewed as unlikely to alter the App Store's basic economics]]. The apparent carve-out for Netflix and Spotify matters because it separates apps that can steer users to the web from developers whose in-app transactions remain a meaningful source of Apple revenue.

Later coverage shows that boundary persisting: Apple's 2024 external-payment rules excluded Video Partner and News Partner apps, while Spotify ultimately received approval for a US update offering alternative payment options.

First-order effects

Netflix and Spotify can add web-signup paths without routing those subscriptions through Apple's in-app payment system.
Developers that generate material App Store payment revenue do not receive the same practical relief, preserving Apple's existing terms for their customer acquisition and billing flows.

Second-order effects

The limited carve-out weakens the settlement's value as a broad remedy: subscription apps must compete under different payment-linking rules depending on their relationship to Apple's commerce system.
Spotify's later approval to offer US customers other payment options shows how pressure shifts from a blanket ban toward narrowly administered permissions, leaving developers to pursue app-specific compliance paths.

Third-order effects

The pattern points to platform-payment rules becoming more segmented: Apple can grant off-platform pathways while protecting the transaction categories most central to its App Store take rate.
As external-payment access expands through discrete rules and approvals, the competitive issue moves from whether links are allowed to which app classes qualify and under what conditions.

The trend: App Store payment governance is shifting from uniform in-app billing mandates toward selective external-payment exceptions that preserve Apple's control over higher-value transactions.

Discussion

@eldsjal Daniel Ek on x
This is a step in the right direction, but it doesn't solve the problem. App developers want clear, fair rules that apply to all apps. Our goal is to restore competition once and for all, not one arbitrary, self-serving step at a time. We will continue to push for a real solution…
@keleftheriou Kosta Eleftheriou on x
Read this again. What Apple is saying is they want users to keep trusting *Apple*. The links will be CLEARLY marked as external links to set boundaries & dissuade users from opening them, and they're gonna open in a private Safari tab for extra friction - er, I mean privacy.🤷‍♂ ️…
@backlon Dieter Bohn on x
There are just as many questions as answers: - Does Apple still get to define “reader” app by fiat? - Can apps explicitly mention payment or price or is that muzzled? - One link - where does it go? Are there rules? https://www.apple.com/...
@siracusa John Siracusa on x
Sure, your “reader” app can include one (1) approved link to your website...but will you be allowed to have any text near that link explaining why someone might want to tap on it, or is that still forbidden? This is where we are, mentally, when considering App Store rules in 2021…
@pkafka Peter Kafka on x
@mgsiegler Yeah I just wonder how they're gaming out the version where they are forced into drastic changes that undercut a $15-$20b business. Do they think that's inevitable and they're just wringing it out? Or do they think they can stave it off indefinitely?
@mgsiegler M.G. Siegler on x
@pkafka Yeah, that's a fair read. Using these settlements to do the bare minimum while *appearing* to be yielding (which they are here a bit, but they could give on so much more, per your point!).
@stroughtonsmith Steve Troughton-Smith on x
It took the full weight of a national antitrust investigation to make Apple budge by ‘a single link’ for a /subset/ of App Store apps, a policy change that would require no development or code changes on Apple's part. We've got a loooong road ahead of us https://twitter.com/...
@dhh @dhh on x
“Which echos @daringfireball's point that it's astounding Apple let things get this far. Why are they risking antitrust scrutiny around the world, as well as setting fire to their relationship with developers, over a minority part of the business?” https://world.hey.com/...
@patrickmcgee_ Patrick McGee on x
Amid talk of these concessions by @Apple in the last week, the stock is up nearly 5%, adding more than $100bn to its value. Gives you a sense that Apple is winning here, not developers, as it offers bare minimum tweaks to policy. Thoughts? https://twitter.com/...
@keleftheriou Kosta Eleftheriou on x
Similarly, the links won't open in an in-app web view for friction, er, I mean *security* reasons - to prevent the app from doing anything naughty with the web view. You either use Apple's system, or you get punished by a thousand artificially induced cuts.
@reuterslegal @reuterslegal on x
Apple has offered small concession in easing App Store rules for ‘reader apps’ like Netflix. The change is set to take effect early next year and will be applied globally, said Apple, which will retain ultimate say over which apps qualify as reader apps. https://www.reuters.com/.…
@munster_gene Gene Munster on x
I believe the 30% and 15% take rates will hold for the next five years.
@munster_gene Gene Munster on x
In the end, the vast majority of users will stay within the Apple payment and app ecosystem, it's more secure and easier.
@gruber John Gruber on x
@BenBajarin ... Bingo.
@bzamayo Benjamin Mayo on x
App Store Rules, reformed by one late night lawsuit settlement press release at a time
@munster_gene Gene Munster on x
Let's start by framing how much of Apple's business is impacted. This is related to the services business which is about 20% of revenue. All apps account for about a third of services revenue, or about 7% of revenue, and 14% of profits.
@keleftheriou Kosta Eleftheriou on x
Ironically, while slowly transitioning into this new & slightly more open world, Apple risks to be seen as acting in an increasingly user-hostile way - as their various existing dark patterns come to the foreground and under the spotlight.
@benbajarin Ben Bajarin on x
@mgsiegler ... Essentially this should have been done years ago. But, perhaps, given how it's escalated they fear a full pivot makes them look weak instead of proactive for the greater good of the ecosystem.
@mgsiegler M.G. Siegler on x
@BenBajarin ... ...this has almost been the story of Apple over the past 20+ years? (As @gruber talked about in same pod.) In some ways, it really is “thank you sir, may I have another!” It's pretty clear to many of us what they should do here, I think they fear giving the mouse …
@mgsiegler M.G. Siegler on x
@BenBajarin @pkafka To be clear, I totally agree with this (as stated in recent writing and pod with @gruber), I'm just trying to get into their mindset as to why they're not doing that. And I think it's just stalling... The risk, as you're alluding to, is pissing off devs to whe…
@mgsiegler M.G. Siegler on x
@pkafka They have to know it's inevitable for a number of reasons now. But I think the slow bleed makes sense from a sheer Wall Street tactics perspective. Build up other businesses as the air gets slightly let out of the ones they have fully inflated right now...
@mgsiegler M.G. Siegler on x
@pkafka Sort of like how Services growth has taken pressure off of iPhone, which has also been fully inflated and can't stand (well, presumably) too many more price hikes... Apple is smart around such tactics, as you would hope for a $2.5T company, but there's some risk...
@fosspatents Florian Mueller on x
I agree with @TimSweeneyEpic's proposal, and Apple's concessions are minimalism, window-dressing. But just like we—who advocate change—have the right to attack Apple's practices in multiple jurisdictions on a diversity of grounds, they have the right to settle case by case. https…
@martinsfp Martin Sfp Bryant on x
As they are gradually unpicked, Apple's App Store rules just look ever more ridiculous. https://twitter.com/...
@stevekovach Steve Kovach on x
I'm told companies like Spotify still aren't 100% sure if the new App Store rules will let them offer alternative payments by linking from the app to the website. They're waiting for Apple to update its policies. Press release last night was vague. https://www.cnbc.com/...
@stevekovach Steve Kovach on x
At the same time, Japan's announcement makes it pretty clear developers will be able to offer alternative forms of payment outside the App Store https://www.jftc.go.jp/...
@film_girl Christina Warren on x
@stroughtonsmith Remember when we could browse the Kindle store in the app (and not in the half-assed “trial way” like now)? Now maybe we can at least get a link to the damn kindle store. Though I bet it'll only work for the “manage my account” section of the Amazon website.
@timsweeneyepic Tim Sweeney on x
Apple's special deal for “reader apps” like Amazon video, Netflix, and Kindle just got more special! Starting in 2022, they can link directly to the web to signup and “manage” accounts (presumably meaning: buying stuff with non-Apple payment methods). https://www.apple.com/...
@horaciog Horacio Gutierrez on x
Apple's selective tweaks to its App Store rules are welcome, but they don't go far enough. #TimetoPlayFair https://twitter.com/...
@jamesthomson James Thomson on x
Again with the “let's add more complicated rules in an effort to stave off antitrust” approach, rather than just ripping off the payment system band-aid: https://www.apple.com/...
@keleftheriou Kosta Eleftheriou on x
This train isn't going to stop anytime soon. “As Apple antitrust case ends in Japan, a new one opens in India” https://9to5mac.com/...
@reuterslegal @reuterslegal on x
The India antitrust case against Apple also alleges that its restrictions on how developers communicate with users to offer payment solutions are anti-competitive, and also hurt the country's payment processors https://www.reuters.com/...
@eric_seufert Eric Seufert on x
Is India the next domino to fall for Apple regarding in-app payments? https://www.reuters.com/...
@appfairness @appfairness on x
.@Apple's latest announcement seems to be another attempt to protect their App Store monopoly by dividing developers into winners and losers. Apple must end its anti-competitive practices and provide a fair digital marketplace for all. https://www.reuters.com/...

Chronicles