Apple App Store guidelines remove ban on encouraging external payments in US
Apple has updated its U.S. App Store guidelines to comply with a court ruling in the Epic Games antitrust case, lifting its ban on apps steering users to external payment methods while keeping in-app purchase requirements elsewhere. Commenters see this as a significant but geographically limited setback for Apple’s long‑criticized 30% commission model, with many expecting similar pressure from the EU and other regulators. The change prompts debate over who benefits more—large platforms or smaller developers—and whether users are better served by Apple’s centralized, refund‑friendly payment system or by greater choice and competition in how digital goods are sold.
Scope of Apple’s Change (US-Only)
- Guidelines now allow US App Store apps to encourage external payments and use external links without special entitlements.
- Many see this as narrow, “malicious compliance” with a court order designed to preserve Apple’s legal position and revenue while it appeals.
- Several argue that if Apple applied the change globally it would undermine its claim that the injunction is unjust or uniquely US-specific.
Regulation, Antitrust, and “Free Markets”
- Commenters frame this as a textbook example of Big Tech stretching illegality as long as fines < profits, with courts and regulators always a step behind.
- Some say a US antitrust loss this strong legitimizes EU‑style intervention and undercuts the “EU vs US protectionism” narrative.
- Long subthreads debate whether “free markets” are meaningful without active antitrust enforcement; many argue unregulated markets naturally trend toward monopoly/cartel.
Developer Economics and Payment Control
- Apple’s 30%/15% cut is widely criticized as unjustified rent, especially when external processors charge far less.
- Some developers welcome Apple’s IAP for its global coverage and single API; others say it’s painful to integrate, inflexible, and blocks fair pricing and refunds.
- There’s concern that the requirement to use IAP for unlocking in‑app features still stands, keeping Apple’s core power intact.
Consumer Protection vs Choice
- Supporters of Apple’s control highlight easy refunds, unified subscription management, and fear of scams with arbitrary processors.
- Opponents counter that credit card chargebacks already provide protection, Apple bans accounts for chargebacks, and users should be free to trade convenience for lower prices.
- Several expect many apps to steer to cheaper web payments while leaving Apple IAP as a premium, optional path.
Broader Ecosystem and Alternatives
- Some want multiple app stores or true sideloading instead of just external payment links.
- Others argue the App Store’s gatekeeping has improved app quality versus Android, but acknowledge Apple invited regulatory backlash by overreaching.