This is a blatant attempt by Apple to extra their 30% rent on business that happens outside of their App Store. It's shocking that one of the wealthiest companies in the world acts this way towards small developers and companies.

> It's shocking that one of the wealthiest companies in the world acts this way towards small developers and companies.

It’s not shocking at all. Corporations pull this kind of shit constantly.

This is corporate strategy running amok. Clearly the whole app review has been scaled up and is now using less than stellar resources quite possibly unfamiliar with the OS and basics of business beyond the training they received.

I think you're misunderstanding this rule. If I made a phone game where there was a "store" where I could buy physical stickers but each sticker pack came with a code for 10,000 in-game coins Apple would see that as just a way to get around paying 30% for something digital.

And if the only way to get in-game coins was by buying stickers off-app Apple would say you have to offer buying them in-app too as an IAP.

Yeah, when a rule has all these bizarre apparent loopholes and where the rule-setter needs to examine the implied intent of the action... it might be a bad rule.

I think any system of rules is going to look weird and organic when they have millions of people trying to rule lawyer the system.

Like the basic tenant of “we take a 30% cut of the sale of all digital goods on our platform” is pretty straightforward, you only run into weird rules when you try find ways around it.

How are we trying to find way around it? We don't want to sell anything via IAP because it does not make sense in our app. But somehow we are forced to do it.

Look, I don't at all think you're trying to get away with something -- I think you're caught up in weird rule that was intended to plug the loophole of "selling a stick of gum that comes with a free bottle of water." From the reviewer's perspective they see that when personal trainers sell their services to clients they're also selling your/their white-label app. To Apple that's a sale of digital goods and they want their pound of flesh. The fact that it's bundled with an IRL service doesn't seem to matter to them.

You might be able to get away with skirting this rule if your white-label app is just a client to a fitness tracking service. Then it should fall under the same rules as Netflix and other "reader" apps.

tenant (occupant or renter) -> tenet (principle or belief)

fwiw, multiple big games I can think of do exactly what you described and are still on the iOS store. At least one of them brings in millions USD a month AND the out-of-app-only purchase flow is a huge money maker. Google lets them get away with it too, though, so it might just be a "big companies obey a different set of rules" situation.

I have been thinking of using this loophole for ages but have never seen it done. Mind sharing the name of the game?

Granblue Fantasy is in the iOS store and not only has bonuses for direct purchases (through their website) but sells lots of physical merch at a large mark-up with pack-in serial codes used for getting game content. There's a sizable chunk of their playerbase that goes out and buys everything - when they put something out it tops the Amazon.jp charts every time

I feel like someone at Apple either lost the script or made a mistake around getting in the middle of these services. Why try to force the WP app to add IAP or your app? It can't be for the money. Let's be real, unless Netflix or some other huge service provider comes back, Apple is ruining their reputation over literal couch change (last I checked 1/3 of services money came from Google paying to be the default browser...). So is there some other reason? Does Apple really think it offers a better consumer experience?

> It can't be for the money.

That's right. Huge multinational corporations famously don't like money.

Don't underestimate the power of immoral mazes. With a corporation the size of Apple, the middlepeople are all very far removed from the specifics of what does and doesn't generate profit and instead are following their interpretation of directives and attempting to appease their superiors -- which may or may not be quantified in monthly revenue. I imagine in the case of app review, their performance metrics can't be expressed in revenue, so their must be using something else to grade themselves.

Probably how many apps get reviewed/rejected/approved/escalated in a certain cycle.

My suspicion is the focus is more on the first than on the last of those statistics.

If the focus was on the last we’d hopefully not see so many spurious rejections.

> That's right. Huge multinational corporations famously don't like money.

In some cases yes. The whole concept of 'Innovators Dilemma' is built on this fact. Squeezing an extra million here or there is a waste of Apple's time at their scale. It doesn't move the Apple revenue needle. Getting WP or some fitness app, even in aggregate to give 30% of a subset of customer subscription does nothing for Apple except hurt their brand. It probably actually costs them money from losing brand value.

Google OTOH pays Apple billions to be the default and/or first position on the search list. That's why we're unlikely to see an Apple search engine anytime soon.

You are right. It is like meeting guidelines have become more important than any thing else.

And in our case adding IAP will surely make for a poor user experience. How a fitness business can serve users that sign up for an in-app purchase from anywhere in the world. A personal trainer can't help everyone. They have a specific niche and specific type of people they can and want to serve.

So if I'm understanding this right, you sell "app as a service" to personal trainers who then direct their clients to download the app you made them and track workouts.

I think the "digital service" is the app itself because you only get access to the app if you're paying for a personal trainer. So I guess they want you to support buying the app directly not as part of a personal trainer package even though I'm guessing nobody would actually do that.

It definitely seems like you're running up against the rule meant to prevent "buy a coffee and get in-game coins free as as way to get around the 30% cut."

Yes, we build apps for gym and personal training businesses. Most of the value is delivered in-person or Skype (assessment, workout design, taking client through a workout etc). I feel like the guideline is not clear cut.

The personal training business has a high marginal cost and unlike games or other digital services, the value can be unlocked immediately after in-app purchase.

I feel the marginal cost of a product should determine what qualifies for this guideline. But for now we are in limbo.

> By the same reasoning apps built for physical therapists, doctors should add in-app purchases too?

It would be really useful for me to pay my copays with Apple Pay for telemedicine, for what its worth. I'd love this as a feature.

Would you still love it if the price has to be raised 30% to cover the IAP fee?

He would love it because he would not be allowed to be informed about the existence of that surcharge.

Well thankfully that's against Apples ToS and my insurance plan

Not if they raise it everywhere to cover it. This is exactly how Apple's policy can raise prices for end users.

Competitors without apps will not raise their prices, though.

No, YT simply charges a higher subscription fee if you do it through the Apple in app purchase.

Is it really against apple's ToS to increase in-app prices to make up for the 30% fee?

It was part of a set of changes that were meant to go into effect in July but that Apple rolled back. You're allowed to charge a different price but you can't tell the user that they can get it cheaper elsewhere or that you're paying 30% to Apple.

I don’t think Apple Pay integration would incur the 30% fee. It would be closer to a CC transaction fee. ~3% (based on Stripe).

All IAP for digital is added a 30% fee in iOS (unless you are a big company that might make a backroom deal like Amazon).

But Apple Pay isn’t IAP.

You're right, but the discussion thread is about Apple requiring mandatory IAP (not just Apple Pay) before it will approve an app that sells fitness services, and then the discussion went into payment for telemedicine service - which presumably also require IAP and its 30% fee if Apple is consistent.

If it is for non digital goods, you can use Apple Pay (standard credit card rates) instead of IAP. Uber uses Apple Pay. Somehow TurboTax uses Apple Pay.

It is completely slimy that Apple forces apps that support personal trainers who take clients online 30% when if it was for a physical training session they wouldn’t have to because they were forced by Covid.

He said Apple Pay, not IAP. Apple Pay charges a standard credit card processing fee of 2-3%. The Uber app for example allows Apple Pay. Not IAP.

30% fees are only for digital goods/services. Real-world goods and services don't incur them.

Wouldn't a telemedicine appointment using the app for voice/video be indeed a "digital" good?

That's a good question. Personally I'd think no, as it's a real-world service (healthcare) that just happens to use a video call, but Apple's now-infamous hunger for services revenue growth may feel differently.

The Apple/Facebook dispute over the 30% for digital events (Apple demands 30%, Facebook thinks nobody - Facebook included - should be taking a cut) seems to make clear that Apple believes you owe them a cut no matter what as long as it's digital.

Facebook isn’t getting free payment processing here. They are trying to eat their fees temporarily to lock in an audience

Facebook always gets their cut, just not from the consumer. They sell or use the usage data to undercut popular services which seems more toxic than 30% up front. If they were doing this without retaining data on the transaction I would be more charitable to their cause.

An app developer can implement copay feature on iOS using Apple pay without any issues right now.

But that is not the issue..

See I go to physical therapist for my shoulder pain and get home workout on my app. Apple is saying that you can't deliver home workout unless you add those home workouts are also available as an in-app purchase.

Is the copay due still subject to the 30% Apple tax in this instance?

Most probably not.

Shill: If it's in your market I highly suggest Kaiser! they have video telemedicine to actual doctors that's super useful for things like Flu, small maladies, follow ups. Plus I can email any of my doctors or anyone on my care team. Save a visit just send an email - even get a scripts for simple things.

This is literally the only reason I have a chromium browser installed on my personal machine. It's a great idea, but their implementation is quite bad.

I'm feeling hard pressed to find a better word than extortion to describe Apple's behaviour here. Sucks you have to deal with that.

I believe Automattic ran into this one recently. Check that none of the link to the internet allow you to open to a "plans" page.

We don't have any links inside the app that direct the users to the fitness business website. We even had a call with the app reviewer and this thing never came up. We would be happy to remove any links if they find. But I don't think that is the case.

So much is open to interpretation and Apple is not even consistently applying their own rules, ah sorry, guidelines.

They are consistent. Bigger publishers get away with much less bullshit than smaller ones. Once you are big enough you get your own apple account manager which makes business a lot easier.

Then how is Amazon's Apple Fee 15% and not 30% like everyone elses? The bigger you are the less "Rule" and more "Guideline" they are.

I can imagine reviewers getting bonuses for each app they force to offer IAP. Just speculation though.