alt.hn

5/15/2025 at 6:38:13 AM

Critical Warning for External Purchases in Apple App Store

 https://mjtsai.com/blog/2025/05/14/critical-warning-for-external-purchases-in-app-store/

by mpweiher

5/15/2025 at 7:35:52 AM

Why is apple pulling these silly cards, do they have a personal beef or something??

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

by seydor

5/15/2025 at 7:58:03 AM

Yes, they do have a personal, well documented beef about this.

by urbandw311er

5/15/2025 at 9:07:16 AM

At this point it’s probably existential. They AB test this and see immediate and drastic impact on revenue so they do them.

by figassis

5/15/2025 at 9:37:51 AM

Yeah, the market loves growth and services have been their growth lately so that being hit is a big deal for the stock price (and execs are bonused on stock price).

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.

by disgruntledphd2

5/15/2025 at 11:22:57 AM

It's definitely existential if they DON'T put a warning because then it undermines the core promise for which they charge (security/privacy)

by throwaway290

5/16/2025 at 3:11:02 AM

But that's already been principally undermined by PRISM compliance, NSO Group and Tim Cook's hunky-dory relations with Donald Trump.

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.

by bigyabai

5/16/2025 at 3:53:27 AM

you're in a bubble. trust me out there 99% of Apple customers are not trying hide from NSO, PRISM, CIA or NSA and for regular people security and privacy is not about that. it's about having your bank app not being hacked or not being spied on by your ex with a hidden app. small things like that.

by throwaway290

5/16/2025 at 4:16:09 AM

You've missed my original point. People only care about the small things, not what actually make them secure. They accept whatever fear-du-jour is marketed to them ("Google spies on you!") and then surmises that Apple protects them. But[0] they[1] don't[2]. Apple actively neglects runtime security to justify their centralized entitlement service they sell to developers. And users don't care because, like you said, they never have. They don't respond to anything, besides what they are explicitly told is scary.

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...

by bigyabai

5/16/2025 at 6:49:40 AM

You miss the point. What actually makes the difference secure is the basic things like not being able to install an app that steals your banking info. If the government is after you you are toast regardless of whether alt stores are allowed. Believe me none of the three letter agencies or companies mentioned care about the average joe. But that average joe is the one making apple money.

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

by throwaway290

5/15/2025 at 8:04:39 AM

[dead]

by Zoethink

5/15/2025 at 7:34:01 AM

Wonder if they’ll put that warning on bank apps? What’s the difference after all?

It’s looking like Tim Cook should wrap up and let someone like Schiller take over

by akmarinov

5/15/2025 at 7:06:09 AM

Screenshot of the warning: https://nitter.net/pic/orig/media%2FGqxWbH8WgAAPx8L.jpg

by 3D30497420

5/15/2025 at 7:55:50 AM

TBH that doesn't look or sound so bad.

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.

by qiqitori

5/15/2025 at 10:06:41 AM

They have obviously tested it and found that it deters their users from installing the app, otherwise they wouldn't have done it.

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.

by OsrsNeedsf2P

5/15/2025 at 10:20:57 AM

So it would be fair to say they're going for round two in trying to sidestep the intent of the judicial order not to hinder competition?

I only ask because the judge took a bite out of them the first time they did exactly that.

by conartist6

5/15/2025 at 2:07:36 PM

The bill hasn't been paid yet though. We'll have to wait and see before we can objectively say whether Apple's malicious compliance holds up.

by ffsm8

5/15/2025 at 9:36:36 AM

Nah it's pretty bad. Me and you are in the tech sphere and we know the backstory.

But imagine mom or dad viewing this screenshot and getting creeped out because of the red icon.

by shash7

5/15/2025 at 10:13:37 AM

But imagine the flashlight apps and mindless-tapper games that subscribe some mom’s credit card to a 9.95 USD/day charge without an easy way to cancel?

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.

by nlitened

5/15/2025 at 11:52:27 AM

> But imagine the flashlight apps and mindless-tapper games that subscribe some mom’s credit card to a 9.95 USD/day charge without an easy way to cancel?

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.

by klabb3

5/15/2025 at 10:11:26 AM

For what it's worth, that link doesn't seem to work anymore.

Here's an article which does show what the warning looks like: https://www.theverge.com/news/667484/apple-eu-ios-app-store-...

by tentacleuno

5/15/2025 at 10:14:30 AM

Works over here.

by xx_ns

5/15/2025 at 11:58:43 AM

That's strange, it does seem to work now. When I posted my comment, the link returned a 404 error.

by tentacleuno

5/15/2025 at 4:12:13 PM

Cynicism aside, Apple also has a very critical trust problem to solve here.

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.

[1]: https://support.apple.com/en-us/118428

by ankit219

5/15/2025 at 12:27:26 PM

Hopefully the EU shames Apple and threatens with more fines for this “malicious compliance”.

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).

by AnonHP

5/15/2025 at 12:35:25 PM

> AFAIK, Eddy Cue is the one responsible for all this.

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...

by lapcat

5/16/2025 at 9:52:45 AM

Thanks for the correction. I was wrong in saying that Eddy Cue was responsible for this. I was referring to the App Store and its issues in general (not just the recent ruling), and the one to blame in the past would’ve been Phil Schiller. Now it seems like Tim Cook is the one to be blamed for everything App Store. The entire App Store needs a rethink and a revamp without the bean counters running the show.

by AnonHP

5/15/2025 at 9:05:48 AM

Won’t stop til the US gov starts enforcing anti monopoly laws.

Best backup plan is EU laws that basically target these monopoly players directly.

by cadamsdotcom

5/15/2025 at 9:52:33 AM

The EU laws are indirectly hurting the small developers though by establishing frameworks of usage which are impossible to follow.

Best example is Apple, which got away with DMA by just doing the bare minimum and inflicting max damage anyway.

by seviu

5/15/2025 at 10:06:26 AM

> The EU laws are indirectly hurting the small developers though by establishing frameworks of usage which are impossible to follow.

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?

by tpxl

5/15/2025 at 10:07:54 AM

Small, medium and large developers don't have anything to do with DMA. It's applied only to the giants.

by sabellito

5/15/2025 at 10:10:05 AM

Is this Apple PR? Because I worked at numerous indie dev companies (under 10 people) and they celebrated all these changes

by OsrsNeedsf2P

5/15/2025 at 11:50:54 AM

For some reason there is always a demographic of people who have a need to defend big corps, like they don't defend themselves already.

by IsTom

5/15/2025 at 8:22:42 AM

So, the Amazon app doesn't get this warning, even though it also only uses "external purchases", because somehow according to Apple it's only unsafe for digital goods? Give me a break..

by fundatus

5/15/2025 at 10:09:49 AM

Well, to be a devil's advocate here a second, Amazon can probably be trusted more with using their own payment system.

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.

by Avamander

5/15/2025 at 11:43:11 AM

Yes you can. On iPhone the recommend ”secure webview” shows the domain name in bold at the top.

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.

by klabb3

5/15/2025 at 3:27:52 PM

> 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.

by Avamander

5/15/2025 at 11:14:20 AM

Apple has always allowed physical good sellers to use external payment systems. Even complete nobodies you've never heard of. It's always made their rules seem ridiculous IMO.

by goosedragons

5/15/2025 at 3:27:18 PM

There's a vast difference in scale though? Those complete nobodies probably don't get as many transactions as all the "F2P" slopware games do.

by Avamander

5/15/2025 at 8:17:42 PM

Why does scale matter? I thought it was about "security". You only need to pretend to send me a t-shirt once to steal my card info.

There's also nobodies in the F2P game space just as their are giants in the retail app space like Amazon.

by goosedragons

5/16/2025 at 3:56:09 PM

Exactly, one needs to pretend just once, giving scammers significantly more opportunities like that is thus bad.

by Avamander

5/15/2025 at 11:57:40 AM

This has nothing to do with the trustworthiness of the app and everything to do with the European Union Digital Markets App mandate. Every app that's using the new EU rules is getting the warning.

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

by lapcat

5/15/2025 at 6:18:00 PM

OK. And what is the process for me, Joe Indie Dev, to get the same kind of white glove treatment?

(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.)

by archagon

5/15/2025 at 9:12:41 AM

It would be amazing if someone like setapp signed up iOS apps to their service, so you could now have apps that did not rely on individual subscriptions, solving the subscription fatigue issue and the in app advertising issue, especially for kids apps.

by figassis

5/15/2025 at 9:53:58 AM

Setapp has supported iOS with a healthy selection of apps since 2020.

by CharlesW

5/15/2025 at 12:04:39 PM

Does Apple display this message when an app includes both Apple and non-Apple payments? If that were the case, it would make sense to support Apple payments at 10x the price.

by xnx

5/15/2025 at 6:59:33 AM

Very unsurprising, but still disappointing, that Apple resorts to scare mongering for apps that don't want to pay the 30% Apple tax.

by akie

5/15/2025 at 8:21:47 AM

I agree. And between these practices, ads everywhere for services such as Apple TV+, Music, iCloud storage, etc and some feeling that software quality is declining and focused on fluff (emojis, etc) I have decided to start looking around for alternatives but it won't be easy...

by pcardoso

5/15/2025 at 8:46:59 AM

They scared the good app developers away. That 30% means making a living out of selling apps is nearly impossible. For an indie developer it’s just dead.

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.

by seviu

5/15/2025 at 9:43:13 AM

> That 30% means making a living out of selling apps is nearly impossible. For an indie developer it’s just dead.

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.

by kruuuder

5/15/2025 at 9:48:01 AM

> 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.

by AStonesThrow

5/15/2025 at 10:07:15 AM

But it's all fixed costs. I don't see how the 30% change anything.

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.

by kruuuder

5/15/2025 at 10:20:51 AM

The non indie dev companies often have fixed costs that are often proportionally lower. Apple has that and does not pay that 30% tax. The consumer always does tho. There may be more pressure to lower this if there were more alternatives to these walled gardens. For obvious reasons there's only 2.

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.

by modo_mario

5/15/2025 at 10:32:09 AM

> That 30% means making a living out of selling apps is nearly impossible. For an indie developer it’s just dead.

Almost all developers get charged 15%. Only the tiny minority earning more than a million dollars a year are charged 30%.

by JimDabell

5/15/2025 at 10:12:07 AM

> They scared the good app developers away. That 30% means making a living out of selling apps is nearly impossible. For an indie developer it’s just dead.

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%

by OsrsNeedsf2P

5/15/2025 at 8:58:37 AM

They don't have "all the rights" btw. We have agreed that monopolies should not have the right to exist, 100 years ago already. Building bigger and bigger moats moves us away from the "enlightened self-interest" that should be the positive motivation for capitalism.

by rini17

5/15/2025 at 9:35:14 AM

I still think they have full right to charge an amount. Apple doesn’t hold a monopoly.

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.

by seviu

5/15/2025 at 10:33:07 AM

>Apple doesn’t hold a monopoly.

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.

by modo_mario

5/15/2025 at 7:36:25 AM

Bad for everyone, but not surprising at this point.

by relistan

5/15/2025 at 8:51:59 AM

I’m done with iOS, apples endless anti user/developer bullshit has pushed me over the edge. For my next phone I’ll be moving back to Android-ish something sans google components.

The same process is happening to macOS too, but at least Linux is an easy switch there.

by Fizzadar

5/15/2025 at 7:13:58 AM

[dead]

by hotpepperishot

5/16/2025 at 5:19:34 AM

[dead]

by aster2