Comment by tomasreimers | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomasreimers | Hacker News Reader

This is a great question, and it made me think a lot! So Apple differentiates a few types of purchases: - Goods consumed within the app that enhance the app experience (Game upgrades, new functionality within your camera app) - "Reader" apps (NYT, or Wall St Journal) - Physical Goods and Services (Amazon, Airbnb) - so on and so forth

A full list can be found here (on their helpful, seemingly recent, marketing site): https://www.apple.com/ios/app-store/principles-practices/#:~....

And the legalese is here in section 3.1: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#in-...

For a few categories, this is very well-defined. For example, a ride in Uber/Lyft is clearly a good/service consumed outside of the app, a subscription to Netflix is a subscription, and a +1 life in a game is a consumable digital good. However, for other categories it is not as clear; for example, what category does a "Ride Pass" fall under (which lowers the cost of Uber and Lyft rides, but is a monthly, purely-digital subscription)?

Ads as a whole probably gets bucketed into goods and services outside the app (because it doesn't improve your app experience). Beyond that, from a strategic perspective, I suspect Apple isn't trying to get into the b2b game, their ability to control supply there is probably much lower, esp when the developer and the user have a direct connection (through a sales person / customer success rep). However, this raises a really interesting question towards the category of lighter-weight personal ads (i.e. "Promote this post"). I suspect that these are not well regulated and probably not equally enforced. I'd be interested in the comps here: Do Twitter / FB / LinkedIn all use the same purchase method when you promote a post? How about the dating apps when you promote your profile? Are those materially different?

Can someone help me understand: The weight loss app "Noom" [1] asks for your credit card info, in the app itself, when you start using it. They even include a 15 minute countdown timer to pressure you into quickly taking advantage of an "offer". You're charged some small amount of money for a trial, which is automatically converted to a fairly expensive subscription after two weeks.

This is a completely digital service, and they're just ignoring in-app purchases completely. How do they get away with that? Are there exceptions for subscriptions? The app comes across as a scam to me, but it's not exactly an obscure product.

Or maybe they use AB tests or something that hides this from the app review team?

[1] https://apps.apple.com/us/app/noom/id634598719

Addendum for reference... I did screenshot the credit card form. This is in the app it self, not on a separate website. [2]

[2] https://imgur.com/a/756LXwQ

Instagram (Facebook) updated their rules in 2016[1] demanding that off platform deals for sponsored content go through them so they get a cut. Sounds like the exact same situation; You aren't allowed to make money via Ads without paying the platform our "fair" cut. News articles suggest Some of this was FTC compliance but Facebook also wanted their cut.

[1] https://www.facebook.com/business/news/branded-content-updat... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/12/21135183/ftc-influencer-a...

Nowhere in the linked post does it mention that Facebook explicitly receive "a cut", nor is that how it works (at least on Instagram). Sure, Facebook as an opt-in label for sponsored content that adds extra functionality (and helps with FTC compliance) but most sponsored influencer content on Instagram doesn't use these tools.

This isn't anything resembling what this FB post says, nor is there anything to indicate it is even talking about content that isn't on FB/Instagram itself.

Drat, I wish I could edit; I meant deals negotiated off platform.

My understanding is it's potentially illegal [1] to pay someone to post and not tag it as being an advertisement. Instagram added new transparency guidelines [2] that require sponsored posts to be created inside their platform [3]

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/03/15/lord--taylor...

[2] https://business.instagram.com/blog/tagging-and-insights/

[3] https://adespresso.com/blog/instagram-sponsored-posts/

> My understanding is it's potentially illegal [1] to pay someone to post and not tag it as being an advertisement.

Yes, this is absolutely the FCC guideline. But this has nothing to do with FB asking for revenue for off-site advertising (which they don't do).

So this part of your comment:

> "Instagram (Facebook) updated their rules in 2016[1] demanding that off platform deals for sponsored content go through them so they get a cut."

is completely wrong.

> Ads as a whole probably gets bucketed into goods and services outside the app (because it doesn't improve your app experience).

Kinda funny because these companies run around claiming ads are good for your user experience (via 1. funding the free experience, 2. platitudes like "connecting you with high quality offers")

Hmm, I hear what you're saying but I think it's slightly different. The key word there is "Your app experience". When you buy ads it might {improve/detract from/however you feel about ads} but it does so to SOMEONE ELSE.

It would be as if I paid money to change your app experience. Yes it is changing an app-experience but it's outside my app experience (curious how Apple thinks about in-app gifts, e.g. Farmville style)

I think in Tinder there is an in-app purchase available that boosts your profile such that more users see your profile. Notably, it does not change your app experience. I am sure Apple takes a 30% cut there.

Isn't that equivalent to an ad that drives more attention to your Facebook page?

3.1.5(a) Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchase 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.

So if I have two apps A and B, and app A only allows you to buy a license to unlock content/features in app B... no commission is due since what I buy in app A is consumed in app B, i.e. outside app A? :D

Nope, you forgot rule 0.0.0(a):

Apple can change the rules at any time for any reason with no notice. We may not provide details of the new rules.

Does apple get 30% of all credit card POS sales processed on an iPad through Square?

What about purchased in Amazon app particularly Kindle purchases inside Amazon app?

it definitely does for audiobooks, hence you can't buy audiobooks through the app.

As of recently, you can spend credits within the app and purchase audiobooks.

are you sure? It doesn't work for me (UK-based)

With Audible monthly subscription you get credits each month to use to acquire access to audiobooks. You can now spend those credits in the Audible app. This isn’t much different from some games. For Roblox, you can purchase Robux on the website and then use them in the iOS app, though in this instance they offer IAP for Robux in the app as well.

Unless you buy Audiobooks from the iTunes Audiobooks store, of course - and Apple doesn't have to pay a 30% tax to itself for those sales.

How is this not monopoly abuse?

They don't allow Kindle purchases in the Amazon app on iOS, maybe this is why?

See: https://www.amazon.ca/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=G...

You cant buy kindle books via the amazon app for exactly this reason. You can only download a sample. If you open the website in a browser though, you can.

And if I recall correctly, they can't even tell you that it is possible to purchase books outside of the app. Which I find ridiculous.

Apple explicitly disallows telling people how to circumvent in-app purchases. It will get your app taken down.

This a bit silly since there are no in-app purchases to circumvent. It's more of Apple forbidding you to say in app "oh yeah, I'm also selling stuff, not here though". I think such restriction should be illegal clause because of customer or competition laws or sth. They aren't since Apple has them, but should be. Regulators should descend on platform owners and force them to share. Like they are forcing telecoms to sell services in bulk to virtual operators.

As a counterpoint, if Apple relaxed this rule, then app store revenue would plummet. Everyone would make their app free and virtually non-functional, then sell subscriptions via in-app links that direct the purchase to their own fulfillment service. Nobody's entitled to a business model, but I think it's useful to take this devil's advocate view.

Regulators know exactly what Apple is doing here, and have so far declined to take action. That's an explicit decision, not an oversight.

Sure. They but now they can explicitly decide the other way around?

Judges question "Why 30% exactly?" indicates that people no longer think Apple is entitled to that.

ahh it all makes sense now...so that's why I have to go to the web to buy stuff in Fandango/Vudu.

How come these companies don't do something similar for subscriptions? ex: HBO Now (or whatever the fuck it's called these days) could have a subscribe button that takes you out of the app to their site - completely circumventing the in-app subscription purchase. Right?

Apple will ban them if they do that. You're not allowed to link to or even mention alternative payment methods. You can't even point out that the price is 43% higher to cover Apple's cut.

Because apps can’t link to purchase outside the App Store. Let alone link, they can’t even mention they can purchase the content elsewhere either with images, text or any form.

I think this is so silly on Apple side as they try to have a name on raising the bar for user experience. And the worse is that before I realized what was going on I thought it was Amazon fault for some reason, which is even better for Apple as people would normally blame the developers rather than the platform for this design decision.

Lyft Pass has the 30% fee.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com