![]() That requirement was dropped in 2011, but Apple could of course bring back such a rule, and nothing in the injunction itself would prevent Apple from doing so. Will Apple mandate price parity for external purchases?Īpple originally required that in-app subscriptions be offered at the same price or less as the same subscription offered via other channels. But that may not apply to reader apps if they are allowed to link out without supporting in-app purchases. If I were to make a guess here, I would expect Apple to at least require any call-to-action for outside payments to be less prominent than a call-to-action for in-app purchases on a given page. A good example to illustrate the effect of this question might be the Kindle app: would the Kindle app only be allowed one link to, or could it have a complete discovery section in which each book has a link to purchase it on ? It is, of course, questionable whether the judge would allow that (especially given that the language of the injunction talks about links, buttons, and calls-to-action in the plural). In the extreme case, Apple may just allow a single, plain text link. There is a good chance Apple will create rules around links to external payments. What restrictions will Apple place on the number and appearance of links to external payments? If you’re thinking about supporting external payments, you should be working under the assumption that you will have to link out of the app to Safari to complete the purchase, and then back into the app (e.g., via deep link) once the purchase is complete. The reason is pretty simple: Apple will want to make the distinction between in-app purchases and external purchases as clear as possible to consumers, and in-app webviews can be made to look like they are part of the app. My prediction is that Apple won’t allow external purchases in in-app webviews (and they will enforce that through App Review). This question is up to Apple’s interpretation since the injunction doesn’t specify. Will linking out mean an actual web browser, or will an in-app webview be allowed? But all other app developers will still have to support in-app purchases even if they also want to try converting some customers via credit card purchases on their websites. Reader apps (e.g., Kindle and Netflix) currently don’t have to offer in-app purchases and may now be allowed to link out to purchase on their website without supporting Apple’s in-app purchases. Promises of drop-in replacements for Apple’s in-app purchases are therefore misleading. Our interpretation, and that of most industry analysts, is that Apple will now have to allow apps to send customers out of the app for payment. This very narrow limitation makes it clear that Apple will still be able to require in-app purchases (IAPs) for anything that happens inside the app. The injunction essentially removes one word from section 3.1.1 of Apple’s App Review guidelines: Will developers be able to charge credit cards directly inside an app instead of using Apple’s in-app purchases? If Apple wins the stay, which will be decided in November, the injunction would be delayed until appeals in the case have finished, or might be overturned altogether. Update: A few hours after this post was published, Apple filed an appeal against the judgment (as expected), asking for a stay on the injunction. In any case, a lot of questions remain because it’s not yet clear how Apple will change their rules as a result of the injunction. If you want an analysis of the judgment by a lawyer, check out this extensive analysis as a podcast. In this post, I will unpack what we know and don’t know, and what developers should do about it.ĭisclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and this article should not be understood as legal advice. ![]() Particularly, the first point about in-app purchases has seen a lot of discussion. The injunction states that Apple is “permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.” Epic lost on all but one count, but the permanent injunction that she issued in that last count was immediately recognized as explosive for the app development community. On September 10th, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled on the Epic vs. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |