{"id":41794,"date":"2024-01-18T13:37:44","date_gmt":"2024-01-18T18:37:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=41794"},"modified":"2025-05-07T10:48:55","modified_gmt":"2025-05-07T14:48:55","slug":"storekit-purchase-link-entitlement-for-united-states","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2024\/01\/18\/storekit-purchase-link-entitlement-for-united-states\/","title":{"rendered":"StoreKit Purchase Link Entitlement for United States"},"content":{"rendered":"

Apple<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Starting today, because of a recent United States Court decision, App Store Review Guideline 3.1.1 has been updated to introduce the StoreKit Purchase Link Entitlement (US), which allows apps that offer in-app purchases in the iOS or iPadOS App Store on the United States storefront the ability to include a link to the developer’s website that informs users of other ways to purchase digital goods or services.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

A commission will apply to digital purchases facilitated through the StoreKit Purchase Link Entitlement (US). For additional details on commissions, requesting the entitlement, usage guidelines, and implementation details, view our support page<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

AppStoreReviewGuidelinesHistory<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Apple has updated their App Store Review Guidelines to now allow apps in the United States, that offer in-app purchases, the ability to include a link to the developer’s website that informs users of other ways to purchase digital goods or services.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Juli Clover<\/a> (Hacker News<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

Apple is allowing apps to feature a single link to a developer website that leads to an in-app purchase alternative, but Apple plans to continue to collect a 12 to 27 percent commission on content bought this way.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

Links cannot be placed directly on an in-app purchase screen or in the in-app purchase flow.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

Apps that use the StoreKit External Purchase Link must continue to offer in-app purchases as an option.<\/p>\n

App Store pages are not able to include information about purchasing on a website or a link to a website.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

Links must open a new window in the default browser of the device, and are not able to open a web view.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

David Heinemeier Hansson<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Okay, sure, the company says, you can link to your website from your app, so consumers may know that there’s a cheaper way to buy your software, but if you do so, we will charge a 27%(!!!) commission on that link, require you to submit financial reports every few weeks(?!), will reserve the right to audit your books at any time(???!), AND hold the threat of expulsion from the App Store over your head, in case we find you to be out of compliance.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Change Miller<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

The other anti-steering change that Apple is required to make is to allow developers to communicate with customers outside of their apps about alternative purchasing options, such as via email.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Tim Sweeney<\/a> (Hacker News<\/a>):<\/p>\n

Developers can’t offer digital items more cheaply on the web after paying a third-party payment processor 3-6% and paying this new 27% Apple Tax.<\/p>

2) Apple dictates all aspects of these links and doesn’t allow them in the app’s ordinary payment flow. Rather, links must be separated out into a different section of the app, away from places where users actually buy stuff.<\/p>

3) Apple requires developers to open a generic web browser session, forcing the user to log in to the developer’s web site again, to make a purchase. And because of #2, users will have to search all over again for the digital item they wanted to buy.<\/p>

4) Apple will front-run competing payment processors with their own “scare screen” to disadvantage them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

John Gruber<\/a> (Mastodon<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

They’re only demanding the commission from web sales that occur within 7 days of a user tapping through to the web from the new External Purchase Links entitlement in an app.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

To be clear, I think Apple should allow apps other than games<\/em> to just tell users they can pay\/buy\/subscribe\/whatever on the web, without any commission. That the rules which have applied only to “reader” apps since early 2022 should be extended to all apps other than games, perhaps alongside a requirement (which doesn’t apply to “reader” apps) that apps taking advantage of this also<\/em> offer in-app purchasing.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I don’t see why games should be singled out.<\/p>\n\n

Ben Lovejoy<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

One common point from those on Apple’s side was that games consoles apply the same rules as Apple. However, a key difference is that Sony and Microsoft sell their hardware at a loss in order to generate revenue from software. For console manufacturers, a hefty app commission is vital for their business model. Apple, in contrast, earns the highest hardware margins in the business.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Riley Testut<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Quite literally the smallest of wins, but still sad it took almost 4 years of litigation just to allow mentioning<\/em> external payment systems in apps<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Francisco Tolmasky<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

LOL we went from the Web being the “Sweet Solution” to iOS apps to needing a fucking entitlement to “include a link in your app.”<\/p>\n

Combined with the dryness of Swift, the Apple platform now feels like working with J2EE at some mega corp where you submit a bug fix & wait 3 months for bureaucratic approval.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

John Gruber<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

My argument remains that Apple should not<\/em> be pursuing this plan for complying with the anti-steering injunction by collecting commissions from web sales that initiate in-app. Whatever revenue Apple would lose to non-commissioned web sales (for non-games) is not worth the hit they are taking to the company’s brand and reputation — this move reeks of greed and avarice — nor the increased ire and scrutiny of regulators and legislators on the “anti-Big-Tech” hunt.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

Rather than take a sure win with most<\/em> of what they could want, Apple is seemingly hell-bent on trying to keep everything<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

And they’ve lost sight of the user experience. Now that external purchases are allowed, Apple is imposing requirements that deliberately make them hard to use and force businesses to add tracking.<\/p>\n\n

swingerofbirch<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Apple is making that link a landmine for developers and for users in terms of privacy. Say I click on the link for Spotify from the App Store. Then at any time during the next seven days, I sign up for Spotify over the web. Spotify is required to both have a mechanism for tracking me to know that I had clicked on the link from the App Store in the last 7 days Apple and to give Apple a ca. 30% cut regardless of whether I ever even use the Spotify service through the App Store. […] And then the warning language that the link may violate your privacy etc, when Apple is the one forcing the company to track where the traffic came from not just in that one instance but for at least the following seven days and then that Apple will be auditing that data.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Dare Obasanjo<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

This is the same energy as Apple ATT.<\/p>\n

Everything on this page is technically true but the entire subtext is Apple is scaring the user into buying the in-app purchase on their iPhone where they get a 30% cut instead of on the web when the developer has linked to their website.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n

Jamie Zawinski<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Apple just got their ass handed to them in a lawsuit, but their pettiness<\/a> remains boundless<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Tyler Hall<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

It’s exactly what we all knew Apple would do.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

And yet, as I move on to reading John’s post about the new App Store guidelines, all I can think of is how modern-day Apple is one giant corporate contradiction. The same company that builds the technology to watch a movie in front of a Tatooine sunset is the same company removing all of the joy and fun<\/em> out of the process of building that sunset.<\/p>\n

Modern-day Apple is its own binary star. One fueled by creativity. And another fueled by arrogance.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

John Gruber<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Apple’s 30\/15 percent commissions from App Store purchases and subscriptions are not<\/em> payment processing fees. They include<\/em> payment processing fees, but most of those commissions are, in Apple’s view, their way of monetizing their intellectual property. And they see the entire iOS platform as their IP.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Since when? That was not Apple’s view with its previous platforms. It was not the way Steve Jobs explained things when announcing the App Store. It was not Phil Schiller’s view when he suggested reducing the commissions so as to keep App Store profits at $1 billion. It seems more like a backward justification<\/a> to keep all the profits after the App Store exceeded expectations.<\/p>\n\n

Colin Cornaby<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

We’ve come a long way since the days of “we can only allow apps from the App Store for carrier network security and we’re not even doing this for the money.”<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Dave B.<\/a>:<\/p>\n

I’m as big an Apple fan as there is, but Apple’s position here is ridiculous.<\/p>

A) The ecosystem is locked down and curated to provide users with the best possible experience. The ‘Walled Garden’ exists to maintain a safe, consistent, well-designed UX for premium products.<\/p>

B) Apple maintains the ecosystem and spends lots of time and money doing so, so of course they deserve a large cut of all commerce occurring within it.<\/p>

Pick one.<\/p>

You can’t have it both ways. A or B. Not both. They’re incompatible.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Jesper<\/a>:<\/p>\n

If the top concern was the privacy, safety and overall experience, the solution is straightforward[…]: institute rules that protect the customer.<\/p>

Allow some leeway, but have a mechanism where if you act in a way that defrauds or misleads the customer, you are liable to be booted off the App Store. With this in place and effectively administered, there would be no point in attempting to mislead the customer. Whether an abuse of In-App Purchases, a particularly malodorous third-party payment system or just shifty behavior in general, it could be chalked up to the same offense. Or, to focus on the positives, an opportunity to throw down the gauntlet and focus on reasoned, respectful behavior, building a community of trust, providing the rising tide that lifts all boats.<\/p>

Instead, the focus is on the enshrined axiomatic supremacy of whatever the Apple payment solution is. If you find it wanting, and want to do something else, tough noogies.<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

Instead, the focus is on the absence of trust, the framing of the developers who largely built the platform’s identity, humanity and success as rogue agents incapable of contributing productively.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

David Heinemeier Hansson<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Can you imagine if Google wanted 27% of any sales that resulted from anyone visiting your store after finding you in their search engine?? AND the right to audit your books to ensure they got their rake?? AND THE THREAT TO KICK YOU OFF GOOGLE IF YOU DIDN’T COMPLY? Nuts.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Francisco Tolmasky<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

The message from Apple is clear: if you don’t want to pay Apple’s 30% tax, you should monetize your app through advertising.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Tom Gerken<\/a> (via Hacker News<\/a>):<\/p>\n

Spotify has reacted with fury, saying the policy “flies in the face” of the US court’s attempt to enable greater competition.<\/p>

“Once again, Apple has demonstrated that they will stop at nothing to protect the profits they exact on the backs of developers and consumers under their app store monopoly,” it said in a statement.<\/p>

[…]<\/p>

“We strongly urge UK lawmakers to pass the bill swiftly to prevent Apple from implementing similar fees, which will help create a more competitive and innovative tech industry for UK consumers and businesses.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

Brent Simmons<\/a> (Mastodon<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

Apple doesn’t care about you personally in the least tiny bit, and if you were in their way somehow, they would do whatever their might — effectively infinite compared to your own — enables them to deal with you.<\/p>\n\n

Luckily, Apple has just provided us all with a reminder. Just like the sixth finger in an AI-rendered hand, Apple’s policies for Distributing apps in the U.S. that provide an external purchase link<\/a> are startlingly graceless and a jarring, but not surprising, reminder that Apple is not a real person and not worthy of your love.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Craig Hockenberry<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Apple’s steadfast refusal to back down on anti-steering is burning a lot of bridges at all levels of the developer community.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n

John Gruber<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

If Apple’s in-app purchasing system is so easy to use, so reasonably priced for its benefits, and so trusted by users, it should be able to compete openly with the web. And I think Apple’s in-app payments do<\/em> compare favorably to leaving an app to pay on the web, especially for games. But with true competition from web purchases that apps can steer users to, Apple’s commission rates, for apps other than games at least, would probably be lower. I’d argue that it’s unhealthy for a company to grow dependent on unnaturally high commissions protected by fiat policies, rather than set through open competition.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

Regardless of whether these anti-steering provisions are legally<\/em> anticompetitive, they’re undeniably anticompetitive in the plain sense of the word. I genuinely believe the Supreme Court has done Apple a favor letting this ruling stand.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Colin Cornaby<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

I think the big disappointment I had was that I was hoping that Apple would see the way the wind was going and make things easy for developers. Between the rumor that Apple is going to split the stores to prevent sideloading in the US, and the payment stuff, doesn’t seem that way.<\/p>\n

I think worldwide governments are going to take a much dimmer view of locked down software and operating systems. Would be nice to see Apple lead the way in that new era.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Nick Heer<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

I feel compelled to emphasize this one point: this is a U.S.-only capability.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

Instead of one App Store around the world — with minor asterisks — there will now be different permissions depending on which geographically-restricted features a developer chooses to use. And Apple has created a bureaucracy to ensure it captures all the money it believes and has argued it is owed.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Craig Grannell<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

only doing what’s forced, when there’s no other option, is not a great look. And devs already have a hard enough time. Fragmenting requirements in the multiple ‘app stores’ around the world seems like quite the destination.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Ian Betteridge<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Apple had a chance to turn a legal defeat into a long-term victory. With Google charging 26% in the same circumstances, the company could have adopted rules which dramatically reduced the levy it wants to take, say to 12% for all developers. This would have gained the company a lot of credibility over the long term.<\/p>\n

But no. Instead, it chose to protect short-term revenue, and do something which looks petty, hostile to the developers who have made iOS a successful platform, and which will probably end up in court, again.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Ryan Jones<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

So so sad they are going to force regulators to write our rules.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Scott<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Those of us who lived through it look back on the Microsoft antitrust era of the late ’90s with particular distaste… future us will be looking back on Apple’s App Store shenanigans of the past decade the same way, likely with even more scorn.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Microsoft got in trouble for bundling their browser with the OS and for preventing resellers from pre-installing competing browsers. They never interfered with other companies making their apps available<\/em>. Apple doesn’t let resellers pre-install apps and does prevent certain apps (including third-party browser engines) from even being available.<\/p>\n\n

David Heinemeier Hansson<\/a> (tweet<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

But Microsoft’s brutish tactics also managed to turn an entire generation of developers against them. And the bill for that didn’t come due until Windows Phone. Nobody, and I mean nobody, wanted to lift a finger to help Microsoft gain a foothold in mobile. The wounds from the late 90s and early 2000s were still fresh in many developers minds. So many cheered as Apple went from underdog, favored by developers for their embrace of Unix roots in their operating system, to the dominant player on a new platform.<\/p>\n

Microsoft has had to work hard to undo that poisoned relationship ever since, and under Satya Nadella, seems to have broadly succeeded in that mission. Microsoft is no longer developer’s enemy #1, Apple is.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

Apple would be wise to study the long arc of Microsoft’s history. Learn that you can win the battle, say, against Epic, and end up losing the war for the hearts and minds of developers. And that while the price for that loss lags beyond the current platform, it’ll eventually come due, and they’ll rue the day they chose this wretched path.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n