US developers can offer non-app store purchasing, Apple still collect commission

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Apple’s new policy for U.S. iOS apps allows developers to link users to external websites for purchasing digital goods, but still charges a 27% commission on those sales and reserves the right to audit developers’ accounts. Commenters argue this effectively removes only Apple’s ~3% payment processing cost while preserving its “app store tax,” making third‑party payments economically pointless for most developers and raising fresh antitrust concerns. Many contrast Apple’s tightly controlled, high-margin model with more open ecosystems, predict further legal and regulatory challenges (especially in light of the EU’s Digital Markets Act), and debate whether the existing 30% revenue share is justifiable at all.

Policy details & mechanics

  • Apple will now allow U.S. apps to include a single in‑app link to their website to buy digital goods/subscriptions (“StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement (US)”).
  • Apple still charges a commission on those external purchases:
    • 27% of gross (including taxes, minus transaction taxes) instead of 30%.
    • 12% for small-business program participants and for subscription renewals in year 2+.
  • Commission applies to:
    • Purchases made within 7 days of the user tapping the in‑app link.
    • All subsequent renewals of subscriptions initiated that way.
  • Developers must:
    • Self‑report monthly transaction data, even if zero.
    • Accept Apple’s right to audit their books.
    • Follow strict UX rules: only one non-modal page may contain the link; no embedding in purchase flows; no redirects, URL tracking params, or deep-link login tricks.
    • Show Apple’s scary disclosure sheet warning users they’re leaving Apple’s ecosystem.

Perceived intent and impact on developers

  • Many see this as “malicious” or “bad-faith” compliance: Apple keeps almost the full “Apple tax” while shifting payment risk and UX friction to developers.
  • After third‑party processing fees (~3%), most devs would save little or nothing, but face substantial reporting and audit burdens.
  • Some argue it’s still meaningful for high‑spend “whale” gamers and for off‑App‑Store user acquisition (e.g., ads leading directly to a web checkout that never touches the in‑app link).

Legal and antitrust angles

  • Commenters note the Epic ruling explicitly allowed Apple to keep a commission as payment for its IP and App Store services; the courts questioned 30% but refused to touch the number.
  • Debate over monopoly:
    • One side: iOS App Store is a de facto monopoly on iOS; combined iOS+Android is a duopoly/cartel.
    • Other side: courts have found no illegal monopoly; users can switch platforms; Android allows sideloading and alternative stores.
  • EU’s DMA and prior cases (Netherlands, Korea) are cited as testbeds; many expect further EU pushback if Apple applies similar tactics there.

User experience, security, and scams

  • Some users value Apple’s unified billing, refunds, and easy subscription cancellation; fear external flows will increase scams and dark patterns.
  • Others are frustrated by being forced out of apps (e.g., Kindle) and blocked from cheaper web prices.

Alternatives & broader sentiment

  • Some devs advocate PWAs or avoiding native mobile entirely; others say App Store distribution and tools are still worth 15–30%.
  • Strong frustration with Apple’s rent‑seeking and control; a minority defend the model as normal marketplace economics and payment for Apple’s ecosystem and user base.