October 2021 Summaries

Google announced a reduction in commission fees for subscription apps from 30% to 15%, effective January 1, 2022, addressing developer concerns about customer churn impacting the benefits of previous revenue splits. This change, which applies from the first day of subscriptions, comes amidst increasing pressure on Google and Apple from lawmakers and developers to reduce restrictive practices. Industry expert Thomas Petit anticipates that Apple will follow Google's lead, suggesting this move will enhance the value of in-app purchases (IAP) by improving user experience, trust, and centralization while benefiting developers with better tax, refund, and conversion rate management. Additionally, Google is reducing service fees for categories like ebooks and on-demand music streaming services from 15% to 10%, although gaming apps will not benefit from these changes due to their reliance on one-time and consumable in-app purchases.

In the Epic vs. Apple lawsuit, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled predominantly in favor of Apple, except for one significant injunction that prohibits Apple from restricting developers from including external payment links in apps. This decision has sparked discussions within the app development community about its implications, particularly regarding in-app purchases. Apple has appealed the ruling, seeking a stay on the injunction, which could delay its implementation. The injunction allows developers to direct users to alternative payment methods outside the app, although it remains unclear how Apple will enforce this, especially concerning webviews and the appearance of external links. While the injunction is currently limited to the United States, Apple might apply these changes globally, as seen in a recent settlement with Japan. The ruling raises questions about consumer benefits, developer choices, and potential commission on external purchases. Despite the uncertainty, companies like RevenueCat are preparing solutions to help developers explore new monetization opportunities, such as web subscriptions, while complying with Apple's evolving guidelines. The case is part of a broader regulatory landscape, with similar scrutiny and potential changes anticipated in other jurisdictions.