I don’t see how that EU statement supports that conclusion, given that it (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_...) explicitly says it doesn’t say anything about it:
“the Commission's preliminary view that Apple abused its dominant position by: (i) imposing its own in-app purchase payment technology on music streaming app developers (‘IAP obligation'), and (ii)
[…]
Today's Statement of Objections clarifies that the Commission does no longer take a position as to the legality of the IAP obligation for the purposes of this antitrust investigation”
Also, reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple#Decision, (which I think is about the ruling you’re referring to) the only ruling in favor of Epic in “Epic Games v Apple” seems to be
“blocked Apple from preventing developers from linking app users to other storefronts from within apps to complete purchases or from collecting information within an app, such as an email, to notify users of these storefronts”
That doesn’t say anything about Apple taking a cut on such purchases, and is explicit that the judge
“disagreed with Epic's stance that Apple should not require apps to include the IAP feature for payment features, stating that Apple has a right to take some fee for licensing its intellectual property to developers”
So, it seems you can offer external payment methods, but only in addition to in-app purchases, and still would have to pay Apple.
From the ruling [1], the only thing Apple lost.
> We now turn to Apple’s cross-appeal, beginning with its arguments concerning the UCL. The district court found that Epic suffered an injury sufficient to confer Article III standing, concluded that Apple’s anti-steering provision violates the UCL’s unfair prong, and entered an injunction prohibiting Apple from enforcing the anti-steering provision against any developer. Apple challenges each aspect on appeal. We affirm.
i.e., the District Court found Apple to be violating CA Unfair Competition Law which Apple had appealed and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concurs with the district court.
Consequence of this ruling is limiting the ability of app developers to communicate the availability of alternative payment options to iOS device users is unlawful. As a result, alternate payment methods can no longer be restricted by Apple.
That's the gist of the judgement as it pertains to anti-steering.
I am unsure if Apple has changed their review guidelines to comply with this judgement yet.
[1]: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2023/04/24/2...
https://www.macrumors.com/2022/04/25/apple-forced-to-allow-t...
At whatever point this becomes allowable, Apple still seems to have the right to come for their cut of it. So now you're paying 3% (or whatever) to Stripe plus 35% (or whatever) to apple.
There was a very narrow ruling affecting only Dutch dating apps. So for those apps and those apps only, Apple added an exception:
If you offer an alternate payment method in-app, you must do it in a certain way: TL;DR they still will contractually owe Apple basically 27% as a “commission” Main points to their rules: 1. Must display a certain message Apple provides before accepting the payment that explains that they are totally NOT doing business with Apple if they proceed and Apple can’t help them 2. You have to provide Apple periodic reports (I think weekly or monthly?) of your revenue 3. You have to pay them their 30% regularly, minus 3% to cover your processing fee 4. They’re allowed to audit you to make sure no cheating 5. If you break their above rules they have the right to pull your app from the store
If you think the above sounds like BS and kind of like they got off easy and cynically followed the letter of the law while still doing the same monopolist rent-seeking you’re right.
Although I think sideloading of some form is coming to at least EU next year, I think? I’m sure Google will be your friend on that one.
Also, there was a recent change in response to some other ruling that any app can now have a link to a site where you can manage an account etc. even if that site might offer the ability to (gasp) pay outside Apple’s system.
