Apple App Store: Difference between revisions
m http to https with AutoWikiBrowser, replaced: http: → https: (2) |
Added archive URLs for 4 citation(s) using CRWCitationBot |
||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
</blockquote> | </blockquote> | ||
On 13 August 2020, Epic Games launched a campaign against both Apple and Google's app store business practices. The company released app updates on both platforms, introducing a method for purchasing V-Bucks, in-game currency, at a 20% discount by directly transacting with Epic Games, against the developer rules of both platforms. The platforms responded by removing the game from their storefronts. Epic Games then filed civil antitrust lawsuits against both companies in the Northern District of California.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Statt |first=Nick |date=14 Aug 2020 |title=Epic Games is suing Apple |url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21367963/epic-fortnite-legal-complaint-apple-ios-app-store-removal-injunctive-relief |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/vfFgU |archive-date=14 Aug 2020 |access-date=1 May 2025 |website=[[The Verge]]}}</ref> The campaign, branded "Free Fortnite", was later extended with lawsuits and complaints in Australia,<ref>{{Cite web |date=18 Nov 2020 |title=Epic Games extends its fight against Apple to Australia |url=https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/freefortnite-australia-press-release |url-status=live |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Epic Games]]}}</ref> the European Union,<ref>{{Cite web |date=17 Feb 2021 |title=Epic Game Files EU Antitrust Complaint Against Apple |url=https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/epic-games-files-eu-antitrust-complaint-against-apple |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/0Nqn7 |archive-date=26 May 2025 |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Epic Games]]}}</ref> and the United Kingdom.<ref>{{Cite web |date=30 Mar 2021 |title=Epic Games files complaint to support CMA Apple investigation |url=https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/epic-games-files-complaint-to-support-cma-apple-investigation |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/FMiCR |archive-date=7 Jan 2026 |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Epic Games]]}}</ref> | On 13 August 2020, Epic Games launched a campaign against both Apple and Google's app store business practices. The company released app updates on both platforms, introducing a method for purchasing V-Bucks, in-game currency, at a 20% discount by directly transacting with Epic Games, against the developer rules of both platforms. The platforms responded by removing the game from their storefronts. Epic Games then filed civil antitrust lawsuits against both companies in the Northern District of California.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Statt |first=Nick |date=14 Aug 2020 |title=Epic Games is suing Apple |url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/13/21367963/epic-fortnite-legal-complaint-apple-ios-app-store-removal-injunctive-relief |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/vfFgU |archive-date=14 Aug 2020 |access-date=1 May 2025 |website=[[The Verge]]}}</ref> The campaign, branded "Free Fortnite", was later extended with lawsuits and complaints in Australia,<ref>{{Cite web |date=18 Nov 2020 |title=Epic Games extends its fight against Apple to Australia |url=https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/freefortnite-australia-press-release |url-status=live |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Epic Games]] |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251219044545/https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/freefortnite-australia-press-release |archive-date=19 Dec 2025}}</ref> the European Union,<ref>{{Cite web |date=17 Feb 2021 |title=Epic Game Files EU Antitrust Complaint Against Apple |url=https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/epic-games-files-eu-antitrust-complaint-against-apple |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/0Nqn7 |archive-date=26 May 2025 |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Epic Games]]}}</ref> and the United Kingdom.<ref>{{Cite web |date=30 Mar 2021 |title=Epic Games files complaint to support CMA Apple investigation |url=https://www.epicgames.com/site/en-US/news/epic-games-files-complaint-to-support-cma-apple-investigation |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/FMiCR |archive-date=7 Jan 2026 |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[Epic Games]]}}</ref> | ||
On September 11, 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decided the case. While the lawsuit against Apple failed on nine of the ten counts, Rogers ruled against Apple's use of "anti-steering" - its strategy of preventing users from being "steered" to a third-party storefront for payment processing - and placed a permanent injunction on this behavior.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brandon |first=Russell |date=11 Sep 2021 |title=Apple must allow other forms of in-app purchase, rules judge in Epic v. Apple |url=https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22662320/epic-apple-ruling-injunction-judge-court-app-store |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/gf9tJ |archive-date=10 Sep 2021 |access-date=1 May 2025 |website=[[The Verge]]}}</ref> Despite the case mostly failing, the discovery process provided significant insight into Apple's decision-making process regarding App Store policies, including decisions made in major app review disputes. In one case, executive Phil Schiller argued for reducing the fee by 30%.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gurman |first=Mark |date=4 May 2021 |title=Apple’s Schiller Floated Cutting App Store Fees a Decade Ago |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-03/apple-s-schiller-floated-cutting-app-store-fees-a-decade-ago |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/R7Zus |archive-date=7 Jan 2026 |access-date=1 May 2025 |website=[[Bloomberg]]}}</ref> | On September 11, 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decided the case. While the lawsuit against Apple failed on nine of the ten counts, Rogers ruled against Apple's use of "anti-steering" - its strategy of preventing users from being "steered" to a third-party storefront for payment processing - and placed a permanent injunction on this behavior.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Brandon |first=Russell |date=11 Sep 2021 |title=Apple must allow other forms of in-app purchase, rules judge in Epic v. Apple |url=https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/10/22662320/epic-apple-ruling-injunction-judge-court-app-store |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/gf9tJ |archive-date=10 Sep 2021 |access-date=1 May 2025 |website=[[The Verge]]}}</ref> Despite the case mostly failing, the discovery process provided significant insight into Apple's decision-making process regarding App Store policies, including decisions made in major app review disputes. In one case, executive Phil Schiller argued for reducing the fee by 30%.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Gurman |first=Mark |date=4 May 2021 |title=Apple’s Schiller Floated Cutting App Store Fees a Decade Ago |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-03/apple-s-schiller-floated-cutting-app-store-fees-a-decade-ago |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/R7Zus |archive-date=7 Jan 2026 |access-date=1 May 2025 |website=[[Bloomberg]]}}</ref> | ||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
HEY.com is a paid webmail provider launched in June 2020 by long-time software company [[wikipedia:37signals|37signals]], specializing in inbox organization tools. | HEY.com is a paid webmail provider launched in June 2020 by long-time software company [[wikipedia:37signals|37signals]], specializing in inbox organization tools. | ||
After successfully launching the initial version of the app on the App Store, the company announced that an update was rejected due to a complaint about the business model. The app does not support in-app purchases; instead, users are expected to have an account with the service already. Apple did not like this arrangement and demanded that the company build an in-app subscription option. The company argued that it is being held to a different set of rules than apps such as [[Netflix, Inc.|Netflix]], whose app does not provide any way to purchase a subscription.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kastrenakes |first=Jacob |date=17 Jun 2020 |title=Hey.com exec says Apple is acting like ‘gangsters,’ rejecting App Store updates and demanding cut of sales |url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/16/21293419/hey-apple-rejection-ios-app-store-dhh-gangsters-antitrust |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/OERP2 |archive-date=28 Jun 2020 |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[The Verge]]}}</ref> After a suggestion from Apple executive Phil Schiller in the media, HEY introduced a 14-day free trial mode, which was approved.<ref>https://www.hey.com/apple/path/</ref><ref>https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/18/interview-apples-schiller-says-position-on-hey-app-is-unchanged-and-no-rules-changes-are-imminent/</ref> | After successfully launching the initial version of the app on the App Store, the company announced that an update was rejected due to a complaint about the business model. The app does not support in-app purchases; instead, users are expected to have an account with the service already. Apple did not like this arrangement and demanded that the company build an in-app subscription option. The company argued that it is being held to a different set of rules than apps such as [[Netflix, Inc.|Netflix]], whose app does not provide any way to purchase a subscription.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Kastrenakes |first=Jacob |date=17 Jun 2020 |title=Hey.com exec says Apple is acting like ‘gangsters,’ rejecting App Store updates and demanding cut of sales |url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/16/21293419/hey-apple-rejection-ios-app-store-dhh-gangsters-antitrust |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.ph/OERP2 |archive-date=28 Jun 2020 |access-date=16 Mar 2025 |website=[[The Verge]]}}</ref> After a suggestion from Apple executive Phil Schiller in the media, HEY introduced a 14-day free trial mode, which was approved.<ref>https://www.hey.com/apple/path/ ([http://web.archive.org/web/20251114230238/https://www.hey.com/apple/path/ Archived])</ref><ref>https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/18/interview-apples-schiller-says-position-on-hey-app-is-unchanged-and-no-rules-changes-are-imminent/ ([http://web.archive.org/web/20251113115149/https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/18/interview-apples-schiller-says-position-on-hey-app-is-unchanged-and-no-rules-changes-are-imminent/ Archived])</ref> | ||
===Patreon=== | ===Patreon=== | ||
| Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
As a result, web pages opened inside embedded browsers, such as those used in apps like Facebook, do not appear in Safari’s browsing history, and there is typically no persistent, user-accessible history within the app itself. Users may also be asked to sign in to the same services (for example, during OAuth login flows like Google) because cookies and session data are not shared with Safari. Additionally, Safari extensions, including content blockers, dark-mode tools, and other privacy or accessibility extensions, do not function inside embedded web views. | As a result, web pages opened inside embedded browsers, such as those used in apps like Facebook, do not appear in Safari’s browsing history, and there is typically no persistent, user-accessible history within the app itself. Users may also be asked to sign in to the same services (for example, during OAuth login flows like Google) because cookies and session data are not shared with Safari. Additionally, Safari extensions, including content blockers, dark-mode tools, and other privacy or accessibility extensions, do not function inside embedded web views. | ||
Apple states App Sandboxing "provides protection to system resources and user data by limiting your app’s access to resources requested through entitlements."<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-01-12 |title=App Sandbox {{!}} Apple Developer Documentation |url=https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/app-sandbox |url-status=live |access-date=2025-01-12 |website=Apple Developer}}</ref> However, developers have voiced frustration with how WebKit is sandboxed which can result in degraded user experiences, such as with repeated OAuth login flows between apps.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-01-12 |title=Impact of iOS 11 no longer providing shared cookies between Safari, Safari View Controller instances |url=https://github.com/openid/AppAuth-iOS/issues/120 |url-status=live |access-date=2025-01-12 |website=GitHub}}</ref> Some developers have found workarounds for sharing information with the native Safari app, but it is unknown whether these methods still function in modern versions Apple's various operating systems.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Storey |first=Leon |date=2025-01-12 |title=Does WKWebView uses cookies from Safari? |url=https://stackoverflow.com/a/41486576 |access-date=2025-01-12 |website=StackOverflow}}</ref> | Apple states App Sandboxing "provides protection to system resources and user data by limiting your app’s access to resources requested through entitlements."<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-01-12 |title=App Sandbox {{!}} Apple Developer Documentation |url=https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/app-sandbox |url-status=live |access-date=2025-01-12 |website=Apple Developer}}</ref> However, developers have voiced frustration with how WebKit is sandboxed which can result in degraded user experiences, such as with repeated OAuth login flows between apps.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-01-12 |title=Impact of iOS 11 no longer providing shared cookies between Safari, Safari View Controller instances |url=https://github.com/openid/AppAuth-iOS/issues/120 |url-status=live |access-date=2025-01-12 |website=GitHub |url-status=live |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251113172345/https://github.com/openid/AppAuth-iOS/issues/120 |archive-date=13 Nov 2025}}</ref> Some developers have found workarounds for sharing information with the native Safari app, but it is unknown whether these methods still function in modern versions Apple's various operating systems.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Storey |first=Leon |date=2025-01-12 |title=Does WKWebView uses cookies from Safari? |url=https://stackoverflow.com/a/41486576 |access-date=2025-01-12 |website=StackOverflow}}</ref> | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||