How to legally avoid using Apple / Google IAP and paying 30% fee?
Have to say, that Apple and Google doing a huge job by building community and mobile stores. But there is some space to interpret Terms in different ways, and maybe some of you, guys, can help me to clarify things or share your story of using a custom in-app subscription/payment system.
I'm building a mobile app for therapists to provide consultations on a weekly basis by subscription.
From Apple Terms:
3.1.1 In-App Purchase:
If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. ...
3.1.3(b) ... You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase.
3.1.5(a) Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchase goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit card entry.
Questions:
- Can therapist sessions be classified as "Goods and Services Outside", and should I have a Web platform to confirm this outsideness?
- If not native languages (like HTML5) will be used for development, can it be a reason for legal bypassing Apple/Google IAP?
- How can I notify users to pay on an external page in case of totally removed any billing from the app?
- Is there some strategy about how to approve app when you have custom billing (off course try to do this as soon as possible)
I read posts about Netflix and Spotify removing IAP, but they have a slightly different business model, and their cases maybe not applicable here.
Please share your experience approving apps with custom billing. Thanx!
After 19,314 lines of code, i'm shutting down my project
Need feedback for my product.
We are live on Product Hunt
Don't be a Jerk. Use this Tip Calculator.
App dev here, this is my knowledge afaik:
Yep, all non-digital products should apply for this
No
No. If you have a native app, you have technical ability to use IAPs since you can bridge native functionality to e.g. JavaScript functions.
You can have the Stripe form or whatever in your app if you have a physical product. Or you can open the payment form in your app as a webview. No need to direct them anywhere outside the app.
Be as clear as possible that you have a non-digital product and that you're using third party payments. Provide Apple testers with test credit card and account so they can test it out if they want. Make a submission early, but you can choose not to release the submission automatically, then subsequent submissions will be easier.
WOW, a lot of thanks for such a detailed answer!
Are the consultation done through the app ie video/chat or in-person?
Buying physical goods from the Amazon app would be "Goods and Services Outside of the App", vs buying Kindle books would not be. Hence the iOS Kindle app doesn't support purchasing from within the app because Amazon doesn't want to pay the 30% tax.
Through the app. Know about Amazon case, but they selling digital copies ... or not? From my point of view, therapist consultations are falling into non-digital, "physical" service. But the question "how Apple classifies such cases?". For me it's an enormous risk, removing billing from the app will dramatically increase customer acquisition cost, and made business model insolvent.
This comment was deleted 2 years ago.
But it's not booking a therapist, I'm going to provide in-app therapists support on a weekly subscription basis. My concern that Apple can presume that if I'm using subscription flow - should use apple in-app subscription.
This comment was deleted 2 years ago.
😩 I know that competitors with the same operational model do not use IAP. Like https://www.talkspace.com or http://betterhelp.com/
This comment was deleted 2 years ago.
It can be to expensive test)