Critical Warning for External Purchases in Apple App Store
mjtsai.com
mjtsai.com
They achieve precisely the opposite of what they think. People will learn to associate that warning with "oh good this app is cheaper than the competition".
People are so accustomed to dismiss "warnings" ,especially when there are going to be so many of them
Additionally, because they control all of the payments on iOS they can provide much better targeting to advertisers for purchases, which open payment processes would reduce the value of.
But they've played this so badly that they are going to lose most of their app store revenue at this point. Sucks to be them I guess.
Users don't actually care about security. They don't even know what it looks like, or how to assess it. They do care about the Jungian shadow of security, vulnerability, which is what Apple's marketing instills in them as a customer: https://youtu.be/0HjDpPnxcP0
So, it's not existential at all. Apple could announce tomorrow that the CIA has unfettered access to all iCloud data, and Apple's customers wouldn't perceive any real alternative. Not because there aren't secure alterantives - but because they were taught that Apple knows best, and without them they're powerless to choose for themselves. This is the critical danger of becoming reliant on a commercialized "protection" service, both online and in real life.
This isn't about holding Apple to some arbitrarily high standard. It's about exposing just how apathetic their customer base truly is, something that has been documented by nearly every Apple enthusiast since the birth of the Mac. The "reality distortion field" we call marketing tenders more sales for Apple than any security investment they have ever made. Take a class in advertisement, I guarantee Apple is on the first-week syllabus.
[0] https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/apple-gave-ubers-...
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2023/12/06/apple-governments-surve...
[2] https://techcrunch.com/2024/11/15/nso-group-admits-cutting-o...
So if company promising security and privacy promises cannot provide average joe security and privacy (often by saving him from his own choices by not allowing insecure behavior) it is very existential for it yes
It’s looking like Tim Cook should wrap up and let someone like Schiller take over
I'd personally use a palm tree or coffee icon for this kind of message. But it is kind of alarming that Apple allows external payments now!! That's like... hell freezing over, or Dracula donating blood.
I don't blame them for doing it, but as someone who spent years doing App Store Optimization (ASO), I can assure you this would tank your conversion rates.
I only ask because the judge took a bite out of them the first time they did exactly that.
But imagine mom or dad viewing this screenshot and getting creeped out because of the red icon.
I am pretty sure that mom would be upset that her “iPhone” keeps stealing her money
Edit: my fears may be overblown, but I am so happy that since getting my mom an iPhone and iPad many years ago, any need for my “computer guy” technical support has vanished.
I thought you were referring to the actual App Store until you said ”easy to cancel”. Sometimes when I read these opinions I wonder if we’re using the same App Store.
Both Play- and App Store are not only full of deceptive marketing, but predatory pricing. I was looking for a timer and the first result (a camouflaged ad of course) comes with a $18/week subscription. Again, for a timer.
The app stores are a scammers paradise. It relies on carelessness for IAP scams I guess, and endless ads (not labeled or shown in screenshots) otherwise. The actual security comes from sandboxing, which is a property of the OS, not the App Stores.
Here's an article which does show what the warning looks like: https://www.theverge.com/news/667484/apple-eu-ios-app-store-...
Many non tech users in Apple ecosystem are used to a specific flow: See an interesting game, download it, when the game asks to pay, link your apple wallet, and then if you dont find the app useful within 14 days (iirc) you just open your subscriptions and ask for a refund. (this applies to more apps than just games. basically companies offering digital goods). If it's more than 14 days, you are subscribed, and want to cancel the sub (as you are no longer playing the game) you can just go to Settings and cancel subscription, no dual popups, dark patterns anything. Of course, in exchange for all this, Apple charges 30% from app developers. (i am not justifying anything, just stating how the system works at this point). For reference, the cancellation flow [1]
This flow is incompatible with 3rd party payment system, especially for non tech users where it's just a payment system for you, does not matter who is providing that. You purchase an app and suddenly you don't see that reflecting in your subscriptions, you can't reverse it. To cancel a subscription, you have to deal with the app's customer support, who have all the incentive in the world to hide it. (Add to it the companies and PMs who would figure out the best hack is to make it look exactly like how Apple's system looks like when it comes to payments).
For the people who follow the news, it's great, they understand the changes. For others, they are going to blame Apple when they cannot reverse their subscriptions and trials. Or when they do not get the experience they are used to. This is not to say that Apple should not allow 3rd party link outs etc. This also does not require the scare screens that apple designed.
There needs to be a reversal of trust where you could download any app you want without thinking. Would be a steep learning curve for a lot of people.
Warning: potentially inflammatory content ahead.
AFAIK, Eddy Cue is the one responsible for all this. He’s known to be a shrewd negotiator (with Hollywood studios and such), but the App Store has been a disaster for developers in many ways (as well as users, in some ways) for a very long time. Tim Cook has trusted lieutenants who shouldn’t be, and gotten rid of those who could’ve done a little better (Scott Forstall, I believe, was one of those).
Incorrect. "To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath. Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.36...
Best backup plan is EU laws that basically target these monopoly players directly.
Best example is Apple, which got away with DMA by just doing the bare minimum and inflicting max damage anyway.
What are the frameworks of usage impossible to follow? People can't release stuff on the apple app store anymore?
Apple did not get away with their (un)implementation of DMA, they got spanked and will continue being spanked until they actually comply. What is the 'max damage' they inflicted?
With random apps there's really no good indication that the system they use is okay. It's not like you can see a legit URL bar or anything in apps.
In general, this embedded webview seems very easily spoofable to me, but that’s a separate problem. Both Android and Apple have determined this is the most secure way to auth against third parties. It’s the standard way to sign in with oauth etc.
Which I also despise.
There's also nobodies in the F2P game space just as their are giants in the retail app space like Amazon.
Indeed the warning has a link to the document "About alternative payment options on the App Store in the European Union" https://apps.apple.com/ie/story/id1726640865
(If the answer is “play golf with an Apple exec,” then it’s no wonder that the company is losing so disasterously in courts around the world.)
A clear example is the Vision Pro. Developer relations were menacing app developers that they would regret not building for it.
One year later, half a million headsets sold, and nobody in my circle has even the slightest interest in developing apps for it. I should know because I am an iOS developer, now working for a bank, and enjoying it, but no longer pursuing the indie dream.
Crickets
Apple maximized its strategy for maximum profit extraction. They have all the rights to do it. It’s, after all, their product. And they keep on doing it by selling devices which are fully managed by them, disallowing the usage of APIs that would make their devices way more usable. All this with full disdain for app developers.
As I said, they have all their right to enforce that 30% rule and show scare banners all over the place.
But the damage is done. And the trust is lost.
Not at all trying to defend Apple's behavior here, but that statement is not true. There are many indie devs making a living from apps. Margins in indie apps are usually very high, as in most cases the expenses are fixed - just your own salary.
It sounds like you are hiding costs of overhead. What about rent for your workplace (whether it is your home, a coffeehouse, or WeWork) and your utilities, especially electric power and Internet access, and your HW/SW tools, including your notebook, monitors, accessories.
Don’t hide your externalities naïvely like an Uber driver.
Say you need 100k profit after Apple's cut.
Scenario A: Apple takes a third of the App Store revenue. You need to sell in-app purchases for 150k. Scenario B: Apple takes no cut. You need to sell in-app purchases for 100k.
So the claim is, scenario B would be the dream, but scenario A is "nearly impossible"? What is fundamentally different between 100k and 150k revenue, if your expenses are fixed? This doesn't make any sense.
The comparison to Uber doesn't make any sense either, their costs aren't fixed. If they want to double their income, they must double their work.
Consider it similar to supermarkets or amazon. anticompetitive market practices and other dynamics make it so they are dominant. Now it's almost unfeasible to not sell your product in these places. They can now dictate you can not sell your product cheaper in your own store if you sell in theirs or the like. At any given time they might notice your success and decide to compete with you kick you to the curb with all advantages they can be expected to use.
Almost all developers get charged 15%. Only the tiny minority earning more than a million dollars a year are charged 30%.
This doesn't even make sense, most provably by the fact you stopped being an indie dev long before Apple was forced to drop its 30%
That 30% is however ridiculous. But they can raise it to 90% if they want to find out. The user is not really hurt, just the developer. Eventually they won’t have developers.
No apps, no iPhone.
Not sure what the monopolistic take is. There is a lot of alternative smartphones with way more ram and great specs, that rival the best iPhone.
I live in Europe though, and over here Android dominates the market, and people use WhatsApp for messaging. A totally different world.
I'd say it's fair to argue it's a duopoly
>The user is not really hurt, just the developer.
Both will likely pay part of that tax to varying degrees.
The same process is happening to macOS too, but at least Linux is an easy switch there.