Apple (MacRumors, MacStories, Hacker News, Slashdot):
Today, we’re introducing the Mini Apps Partner Program, which expands on the App Store’s ongoing support for apps that offer mini apps. Mini apps are self-contained experiences that are built using web technologies like HTML5 and JavaScript. This program is designed to help developers who host mini apps grow their business and further the availability of mini apps on the App Store — all while providing a great customer experience.
Participating developers may benefit from a reduced commission rate of 15% on the sales of qualifying In-App Purchases. To be eligible for this reduced commission rate, participating apps must support certain App Store technologies, including the Declared Age Range API and the Advanced Commerce API in order to help provide a safe and seamless experience for customers of all ages.
Apple:
Mini apps are software packages, scripts, or game content that are added after app installation and executed on the device, provided such code is written in HTML5 or JavaScript, or another language approved by Apple. All such code must comply with Section 3.3.1(B) of the Apple Developer Program License Agreement.
[…]
A qualifying mini app within the Mini Apps Partner Program is one that’s put out by a person or entity that’s not directly or indirectly controlled by you, nor under common control with you.
Hartley Charlton:
Under the arrangement, Apple will begin handling in-app payment processing for qualifying mini apps and mini games distributed inside WeChat, China’s dominant all-purpose mobile platform.
[…]
While the new 15% commission is half of Apple’s standard 30% rate for many App Store transactions, Bloomberg estimates that the size of the WeChat ecosystem makes the agreement potentially worth billions of dollars to Apple.
When it’s small EU developers paying a lower commission, Apple is all, “they kept the savings for themselves.” When it’s Tencent (revenue $27.2 billion per quarter), Apple’s line is that it’s to help developers grow their business.
Sarah Perez:
Today, there are a variety of native iOS apps that offer mini apps, including messengers like LINE or WeChat, or those that offer mini games, like Discord, for example. More recently, AI providers have begun moving into the mini app space. Notably, ChatGPT recently launched apps that run inside its chatbot, allowing users to engage with apps like Booking.com, Expedia, Spotify, Figma, Coursera, Zillow, and Canva. Some have theorized that this platform could eventually evolve to threaten the App Store’s business model if app engagement and transactions moved inside ChatGPT.
Previously:
Update (2025-11-14): See also: Hacker News. The more I think about this, the more I wonder why Tencent agreed.
Manton Reece:
Is this to capture 15% from web apps instead of the 0% Apple currently gets? Or is this an actual discount that will encourage more developers to turn native apps into mini apps?
Update (2025-11-18): Perttu Lähteenlahti:
If your app doesn’t host external developers, creators, or partners — and you don’t plan to — this program won’t affect your roadmap. Apple isn’t creating a shortcut to lower fees; it’s creating a compliant framework for a specific app pattern.
That said, it’s still worth watching. Apple is making space for “apps inside apps” in a more formal way, and that has long-term implications for how mobile software might evolve.
App Store Business China In-App Purchase iOS iOS 26 iOS App Tencent WeChat
I’ve frequently noted my frustration with Apple’s Xcode release notes, how lately they simply don’t tell you what’s changed in a given release. Changes from multiple releases are merged together, and Apple deletes and renames old pages so that you can’t compare them unless you’d saved a copy. However, commenter F1248 has done something about this! He’s created a Git repository with Markdown documents for each macOS, iOS, and Xcode release. You can also look at the file history, e.g. to see the changes between Xcode 26.1 and 26.1.1 or from all the appleOS 26.1 betas vs. RC.
This is great for release notes, though for APIs I still miss Code Workshop and SDK News.
Previously:
Documentation Git Mac macOS Tahoe 26 Programming Web Xcode
Jeff Johnson:
Today I received a shipment notification via text message to my phone number from a company unrelated to Apple. The shipped product was not ordered with my iPhone, and in fact the product manufacturer doesn’t even know that I own any Apple devices. The message included a US Postal Service tracking number. Messages app on my iPhone transformed the tracking number into a link. When I pressed down on the link to reveal the URL, I was surprised by it:
https://trackingshipment.apple.com/?Company=USPS&Locale=&TrackingNumber=
My tracking number, which I won’t post here, was appended to the URL. If I had tapped on the link generated by Messages app, it would have sent my tracking number not to the US Postal Service but to Apple!
As he says, “Apple considers itself implicitly trustworthy,” so there are all these specific examples of violations that it just doesn’t count. But when it comes to others, Apple will assume the worst intentions and make the least charitable reading. For example, it makes broad public statements like, “The DMA has failed to live up to its promises, delivering less security, less privacy, and a worse experience.” And most people seem to unquestioningly believe these claims, just as they assume that App Review can and does reliably provide critical protection. (The reality is that it’s not possible for it to ensure privacy in accordance with the nutrition labels, and they don’t even check that the basic functionality works.) When an Apple-funded study suggests that one potential benefit of EU legislation might not have come to pass, Apple says that’s failing to live up to its promises. But when Apple breaks a specific privacy-related promise, it just memory holes it.
There’s good privacy work being done, but it’s gotten so bound up with marketing and anti-antitrust weaponization. For example, the recent watch Wi-Fi story got presented as: Apple is removing a useful feature because the EU was going to force Apple to give your private information to data brokers. Now, it seems, the actual story is that Apple is now asking for consent (i.e. no longer self-preferencing) and has created a secure API to provide the functionality while preserving privacy. This sounds like something to celebrate, but because privacy has become a cudgel it has to be badmouthed and obscured. For a while, sprinkling the word “privacy” everywhere gave the impression that they really care about privacy. But somewhere along the line, it’s started to seem more like a Get Out of Jail Free card. So, for me, the bit has been flipped, and whenever I see that word I’m on alert to see whether a specific claim is being made and whether it actually makes sense.
Previously:
Update (2025-11-14): I’ve been discussing this with Ivan Pavlov, developer of the excellent Parcel app, who doesn’t think there’s anything to be worried about. Perhaps he’s right, but I don’t see why one should bet against the data being useful when it seems like more private designs could work just fine. He says this was introduced in iOS 6, i.e. before Apple announced that new features would be reviewed by the privacy team, but I still think it contributes to reducing trust in the overall privacy initiative.
Nick Heer notes that the shipment tracking is really part of Apple Data Detectors rather than being specific to the Messages app.
What is interesting to me is that the trackingshipment URL already contains the shipping company when it is created by the data detector. That is, Apple’s web-side service is not used to determine which courier this number corresponds to. It is only performing a straight redirect.
This suggests that much of the logic is already client-side, so the lookup could be made more privacy preserving simply by looking up a URL template for the appropriate company on demand. There’s no need to download and cache elaborate conversion logic that could become outdated.
Kyle Howells:
As far as Apple is concerned they can do more or less whatever they want as long as it never leaves Apple themselves. Because they are obviously implicitly trustworthy.
Even the great privacy work they do, relies on you just trusting your phone actually does what they say. Because it’s locked down so much you have no control over anything to prevent it if it didn’t.
Antitrust iOS iOS 26 Mac macOS Tahoe 26 Marketing Messages.app Privacy
