Apple Tags EU Apps Using Alternative Payments With Warning Symbols (daringfireball.net) 54
Apple has implemented conspicuous warning labels featuring red exclamation marks on EU App Store listings that use external payment systems. The company's new tactic targets apps like Instacar, a popular Hungarian vehicle valuation tool with thousands of positive reviews, displaying ominous warnings that the app "does not support the App Store's private and secure payment system."
The associated support page cautions users that external payments require providing personal information directly to developers and third parties "based on their privacy and security controls." The move also follows the Epic vs Apple ruling that prohibits Apple from interfering with developers linking to alternative payment systems.
The associated support page cautions users that external payments require providing personal information directly to developers and third parties "based on their privacy and security controls." The move also follows the Epic vs Apple ruling that prohibits Apple from interfering with developers linking to alternative payment systems.
Follow the Money (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't this a selling feature? Clearly the wording is disingenuous but people should quickly figure out that it means they can charge less. This might backfire.
Re:Follow the Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Zero chance of that. There are enough bad actors who will stuff their apps with loot boxes, pay to win nonsense, and micro payments galore, without the friction of Apple's haircut that people will quickly understand that '!' means fully-enshitified.
There might be handful of big players like Amazon for kindle books and whatnot where people will look past it but after a few months I am sure exactly nobody will take a chance on unknown developers with '!' on their app.
Re: (Score:3)
Zero chance of that. There are enough bad actors who will stuff their apps with loot boxes, pay to win nonsense, and micro payments galore, without the friction of Apple's haircut that people will quickly understand that '!' means fully-enshitified.
There might be handful of big players like Amazon for kindle books and whatnot where people will look past it but after a few months I am sure exactly nobody will take a chance on unknown developers with '!' on their app.
I think that is exactly correct.
Re: (Score:1)
Almost everybody will keep apple payment, but will also report and redirect to their site for a discount of 15-20% (hey, they can keep the extra 10-15% for extra profit)... so users will have the choice, pay more in apple, or get a discount outside... probably very few will totally disable apple payment, but many people will prefer to use the external one for sure, after all, unless you can't use the external payment, don't want to bother adding the credit card in another place or they are "too complex", w
Re: Follow the Money (Score:2)
Does Apple put the warning on those apps, too? I would assume so.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I sincerely doubt that. Most people don't use iPhones because they are scared of their shadows, and in any case, such payment schemes are usually completely optional. E.g. lootboxes, pay to win, all that crap doesn't need to actually be used. For people who don't traditionally fork out in app money the warning is meaningless.
take a chance on unknown developers
Very few people check or research a developer ever. It's why the proliferation of lookalikes is so lucrative. You give people equally too little credit as well as too much at the same t
Re:Follow the Money (Score:4, Insightful)
For people who don't traditionally fork out in app money the warning is meaningless.
The warning is not just for people. The warning is also about legal liability and disclosure from Apple. If Apple did not put that warning, I would guess there would be many complaints and lawsuits would occur because "Apple never warned me I was paying on a different system." Even with warnings, I would expect some people to still sue because Apple did not disclose all the possible bad outcomes that could occur with using 3rd party systems.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the actual most popular OS on the market had no such restriction, no such warning, and provides secure payment services like Apple did, and quite literally has had no liability on the matter.
The only thing more crazy than the American mentality of solving everything via lawsuit, is the idea that you're magically liable for everything in other people's lives. The legal system just doesn't work like that.
Re: (Score:2)
it's a very long standing Euro mentality
It really isn't, the mentality is mocked in Europe. You seem to be unable to separate the concept of consumers crying about liability and the EC regulators enforcing the law as written. There is no such law in this case requiring Apple to have liability, so please take your tongue out of Tim's arse.
Re: (Score:2)
The wording seems to be designed to get them fined by the EU, again.
I think it's a stretch to say that users would be confused by using different payment schemes and not realize that they were outside the Apple ecosystem. People pay for stuff all the time without it going through Apple. Unless the developer goes out of their way to be confusing, it will clearly be branded with a different logo. And if they do try to be misleading, that's on them, not Apple. People try to impersonate Apple all the time, and
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
As a consumer, I would want that warning and appreciate being there.
Re: (Score:2)
Zero chance of that. There are enough bad actors who will stuff their apps with loot boxes, pay to win nonsense, and micro payments galore, without the friction of Apple's haircut that people will quickly understand that '!' means fully-enshitified.
You don't need the "!" to know that. All you need is to see that it is in the iOS App Store with a price of $0 and the caption "In-App Purchases". The "!" just means that the enshittification will probably cost ~27% less.
There might be handful of big players like Amazon for kindle books and whatnot where people will look past it but after a few months I am sure exactly nobody will take a chance on unknown developers with '!' on their app.
It *might* discourage adoption, but only if it ends up being a minority of apps doing it. Otherwise, it's a giant "SALE" sign.
Re:Follow the Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple cannot guarantee that their system is private or secure either.
Bahahaha. Strawman argument much? But to address your point: No one should trust anyone absolutely; however, Apple still has ZERO knowledge about 3rd parties. Should you trust Apple? That's up to you. But it still does change the fact Apple still cannot guarantee third parties.
The point you missed in my post was warnings about 3rd parties is not new. It happens when browsing. I remember one warning I got about "Be careful about trusting 3rd parties" happened when I was redirected to Mastercard's site as I w
Re: Follow the Money (Score:2)
Not addressing something written in a post doesn't necessarily mean that the reader missed it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
then do as steam
a small yellow note for "external DRM" and like
there is a big difference between a RED exclamation sign (forbidden, danger) vs a yellow one (warning, notice)
They can add a notice, a comment or a special flag, that clearly points that it refers to a external payment, not a danger, forbidden, alarm without clear indication of the meaning. Intention is everything here and the intention is to scare away, where external payment are as dangerous as apple pay (most of them are always really a few c
Re: (Score:2)
They can add a notice, a comment or a special flag, that clearly points that it refers to a external payment, not a danger, forbidden, alarm without clear indication of the meaning.
The system you are describing requires mouse-overs and other behaviors that are on desktop UIs. That will not work on a touch centric phone. Also you are proposing a multifaceted system instead of a simple warning. And the last problem is it requires multiple actions to get to a warning. I can see the complaint now, "Apple buried the warning that required multiple actions to see. What are they hiding?!!"
The warning to me: "We are not handling your payment information. Don’t contact us if something goe
Re: (Score:2)
WARNING!!!! WE DO NOT GET 30% OF THIS SALE!!!! WARNING!!!!!!!
(and yes)
I think a warning is fair on their part (Score:4, Insightful)
But a red exclamation mark is a bit on the nose there Apple. Part of malicious compliance is not being so obvious.
Re: (Score:3)
There's nothing fair about the warning. Every web site that sells anything, uses a payment system of their own choosing. Nobody would think it reasonable or important for Google to flat all web links to sites that use their own payment systems. There's no reason for apps to be flagged either. This is nothing but the kind of abuse typical of a monopolist.
A new fine in a few weeks incoming (Score:2, Interesting)
So they do this and a new fine will arrive from EU commission. Flagging negative/warning signs for those external payment will probably will not be accepted, as it is a unfair discriminatory treatment.
The good part is that the fines are usually increasing in value, so maybe apple will give up someday finally
Re: (Score:3)
Flagging negative/warning signs for those external payment will probably will not be accepted, as it is a unfair discriminatory treatment.
And where in the order from the EU that says that alerting users they are using a 3rd party system is discriminatory? And we are talking about the EU here. My experience with them is warnings and disclosures to protect the consumer would be something they would encourage. From Apple's standpoint, they are disclosing to the consumer that they are not paying Apple; this should be common sense but some people would sue Apple if Apple didn't tell them they were using a 3rd party payment system.
Re: A new fine in a few weeks incoming (Score:2)
The purpose of the judgement is to stop discriminatory behavior. I'll bet you a dollar they decide this is that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the EU we're talking about, not the USA.
Apple will find their malicious compliance - because that's what this really is - will net them a harsher judgement.
In the EU it's way harder to get away with things which are ok in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Please point to the part in the order where it forbids [...]
This is a key difference between US law and EU law.
-The US system requires that details be spelled out in laws or court rulings. We debate over the details of word choice.
-The European system gives weight to the intent of the law or court ruling. As long as the intent was clear, the law/ruling is enforceable.
Re: A new fine in a few weeks incoming (Score:2)
Either take the bet or don't, I'm not interested in pointing out to you all the examples of the EU courts being unimpressed with malicious compliance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You have yet to put your money where your mouth is. Demonstrate intestinal fortitude, it's only a buckeroo.
Re: (Score:2)
Flagging negative/warning signs for those external payment will probably will not be accepted, as it is a unfair discriminatory treatment.
And where in the order from the EU that says that alerting users they are using a 3rd party system is discriminatory?
Simply saying that apps are using third party payment systems is a gray area. However, that's not what Apple is doing. Apple is saying, "This app does not support the App Store’s private and secure payment system. It uses external purchases." That's equivalent to saying "I'm not telling you you can't use this third party payment system, but it's not private and it's not secure. In fact, it uses external purchases, which are intrinsically not private and not secure. So, I'm not telling you not to
Re: A new fine in a few weeks incoming (Score:2)
You say that like the EU doesn't regularly change the rules to target specific companies. The reason the US is the traditional home of mega corps is because of its stable legal system (before Trump).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds about right, we all know the EU hates free speech and expression.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Such a stupid move...
Fair enough (Score:4, Informative)
There are bound to be a lot of scams on the app store with third party payment systems, and you never know how long Joe Blow's payment service is going to stick around and even be there to support their customers or what types of policies they have for customer satisfaction.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The whole concept of e-commerce doesn't work without Apple.
Oh wait, except it has for literally 2 decades now, and Apple's biggest rival who has far more phones on the market doesn't seem to think this kind of shock tactic is worth while. Those poor 3 billion people on Android must be getting scammed constantly without Tim Cook to take them under his gentle care in a room made of pillows.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm less worried about actual scams than I am about Joe Blow and Co's competence. I've done PCI before, both at corporate jobs and as a pre-app-store independent (LLC w/ a friend). And it is non-trivial to stay on top of your compliance. As part of a team at a mid-sized company it's not too bad. But as part of a 2-person outfit or part of a smaller company; it is a major PITA to get right... And that's just to get the piece of paper that says you're PCI compliant. Actually doing everything right for r
Re: (Score:2)
It's no different than websites using a merchant payment processor of their own choosing. Or the store down the street. Should physical stores have warning signs too?
Didn't Epic Games just have a data breach in 2024? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Who *hasn't* had a data breach?
The great thing about credit cards, is that the liability is all on the bank that issued the card.
and the problem is what exactly (Score:2)
Sop they want another huge fine? (Score:2)
Looks like the assholes at Apple do not get that the EU is a bit stronger than they are...
Re: (Score:3)
Apple is trying to find the boundaries. Sure, it could comply with the EU but where's the fun/profit in that? If the EU lets this slide, then it's great for Apple, if the EU makes Apple pay a few billion again, Apple will try something else, maybe a yellow exclamation mark. If it gets fined again, it will try marking "Apple" apps with some green mark and so on.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple seems to be unaware that what they got was the lowest-level of punishment available. Things will escalate if they continue to fuck around.
Does nobody know why credit card networks exist? (Score:1)
App User Perception (Score:2)
I write and publish my own apps for a living, I've been doing this for about 12 years now.
Over these years I've come to realise that App user's don't really understand who it is that they purchased from.
At least the ones who've gotten in touch and asked for a refund.
They think it is my company and I can issue a refund (different with Google Play, I can because Google lets me. With Apple there's no touching their payment system).
So reading this I get why Apple is keen to emphasise who it is that a user would
Ironic (Score:2)
Does anyone else find it ironic that Apple's response to the EU eerily parallels Trump's response to the courts?
For those who think Trump is somehow some special sort of corrupt for constantly pushing every possible legal angle, this is how everyone in America who can afford a lawyer operates.