Linked List: January 16, 2024

Tuesday, 16 January 2024

Apple’s Workaround for the ITC’s Import Ban on Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2: Disabling the Blood-Oxygen Sensor in Software 

Scharon Harding, reporting for Ars Technica:

Apple has developed a backup plan for if the Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 are import banned again. As it currently appeals the US International Trade Commission’s (ITC’s) ruling that its watches violate a patent owned by Masimo, Apple has come up with a software workaround that strips its current smartwatches of their controversial blood oxygen monitoring capabilities.

That’s a good summary of Apple’s workaround from a writer who understands what she’s talking about. Apple will disable blood-oxygen monitoring via software.

Compare and contrast with Aaron Tilley’s report for The Wall Street Journal, under the jacktastically-wrong headline “Apple to Remove Blood-Oxygen Sensor From Watch to Avoid U.S. Ban” (News+ link):

Apple is removing a blood-oxygen sensor from some of its smartwatches to get around a patent dispute related to the technology, a step likely to avoid further sales disruptions but one that may raise questions about the company’s push into health. [...]

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, which is responsible for enforcing import bans, on Friday approved technical changes to the watches, including the removal of the blood-oxygen sensor, according to a Masimo filing on Monday. A decision on Apple’s request for a permanent stay on the U.S. ban during its appeal is expected in the coming days.

Ars includes a link to Masimo’s filing; the WSJ does not. Needless to say, Masimo’s filing does not say that Apple is removing the blood-oxygen sensor from these watches, because they’re not. They’re just disabling the sensors via software for watches sold in the U.S. — the only country where the import ban applies.

This is no little mistake on Tilley’s and the Journal’s part. Disabling a feature via software is one thing, and not that big a deal. Designing, engineering, and manufacturing entirely different hardware models without the physical sensors would be extraordinary. That’s just not how Apple works — they’re not set up to change manufacturing like that. Plus, if Apple merely disables the sensor via software, they can re-enable it via a software update in the future, once the dispute is settled. If they were to start selling Series 9 and Ultra 2 watches that didn’t have the sensor, those watches would never gain the functionality, even after the dispute is settled.

Aaron Tilley isn’t just a tech reporter for the Journal: his entire beat is covering Apple. And he seemingly has no idea how the company functions, because if he did, he’d have quadruple checked this “they’re removing the sensors” take before publishing it. But here it is a day after publication and his report has yet to be corrected. Pure jackassery.

Apple Developer News:

In addition to using Apple’s convenient, safe, and secure in-app purchase system, apps on the App Store in the United States that offer in-app purchases can also use the StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement (US) to include a link to the developer’s website that informs users of other ways to purchase digital goods or services. To use the entitlement, you’ll need to submit a request, enable the entitlement in Xcode, and use required StoreKit APIs. Apple will review your app to ensure it complies with the terms and conditions of the entitlement, as well as the App Store Review Guidelines and the Apple Developer Program License Agreement. [...]

Your app must offer in-app purchases in accordance with the Developer Program License Agreement and App Store Review Guidelines, and may not discourage end-users from making in-app purchases.

Apple clearly had these updated guidelines ready to go, pending this week’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court rejecting the remaining petitions from Apple and Epic.

Scroll down the page, then scroll some more, and you’ll get to the section on “Commission, transaction reports, and payments”:

Apple is charging a commission on digital purchases initiated within seven days from link out, as described below. This will not capture all transactions that Apple has facilitated through the App Store, but is a reasonable means to account for the substantial value Apple provides developers, including in facilitating linked transactions.

Apple’s commission will be 27% on proceeds you earn from sales (“transactions“) to the user for digital goods or services on your website after a link out (i.e., they tap “Continue” on the system disclosure sheet), provided that the sale was initiated within seven days and the digital goods or services can be used in an app. This includes (a) any applicable taxes and (b) any adjustments for refunds, reversals and chargebacks. For auto-renewing subscriptions, (i) a sale initiated, including with a free trial or offer, within seven days after a link out is a transaction; and (ii) each subsequent auto-renewal after the subscription is initiated is also a transaction.]

If you’re a participant in the Small Business Program, or if the transaction is an auto-renewal in the second year or later of an auto-renewing subscription, the commission will be 12%.

These commission rates apply to all amounts paid by each user net of transaction taxes charged by you. You will be responsible for the collection and remittance of any applicable taxes for sales processed by a third-party payment provider.

If you adopt this entitlement, you will be required to provide transaction reports within 15 calendar days following the end of each calendar month. Even if there were no transactions, you’re required to provide a report stating that is the case.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again now, and I’m sure I’ll have to say it again in the future: Apple’s 30/15 percent commissions from App Store purchases and subscriptions are not payment processing fees. They include 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.

So developers who want to process payments on their own websites are still on the hook to pay Apple the same effective commissions, minus only 3 percent for the actual payment processing. And the truth is most of the time credit card processing costs more than 3 percent overall, after chargebacks and fraud are taken into consideration. Do more work and save no money — sounds appealing, no?

See also: MacRumors has PDF copies of Apple’s “notice of compliance” filing, and App Store VP Matthew Fischer’s declaration of compliance, both submitted to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

Disney Has a Good Disney+ App for VisionOS (and, by the Way, I Got Another 30-Minute Hands-On Experience With Vision Pro) 

Disney:

At launch, viewers can transform their space into one of four Disney+ environments, bringing them even closer to the story. Each environment includes animations and sounds that make the space feel alive, and Easter eggs from films and franchises that will surprise and delight fans.

Available only on Apple Vision Pro, Disney+ subscribers will be able to stream the entire catalog — including thousands of TV shows and films, plus access to Hulu content for eligible Disney Bundle subscribers — from iconic environments with vivid details, including: the Disney+ Theater, inspired by the historic El Capitan Theatre in Hollywood; the Scare Floor from Pixar’s Monsters Inc.; Marvel’s Avengers Tower overlooking downtown Manhattan; and the cockpit of Luke Skywalker’s landspeeder facing a binary sunset on the planet Tatooine from the Star Wars galaxy.

I got to try this during another hands-on Vision Pro demo in New York today. (Follow those links to Mastodon and Threads, where I’ve tried to answer every question asked by my followers.)

It’s 100 percent a gimmick, but it’s a really good fun whimsical gimmick, and the detail is extraordinary. It looks like you are there on Tony Stark’s helipad penthouse deck, with a towering view of Manhattan in front of you, and Stark’s apartment behind you. These are 360° environments. The Tatooine view in the landspeeder is right outside Mos Eisley, at dusk.

Does it make the movie you’re watching any better to see it while sitting in an immersive fantasy environment? No, of course not. But it’s a lot of fun, because it’s so intricately detailed and well-done. Did the Mac OS X Aqua user interface make Mac users more productive? Did the original iPhone work better because its interface looked so damn cool? No. But those UIs sure did make Mac OS X and the original iPhone more fun.

I don’t know why people lose sight of the fact that having fun is one of the very best parts of being a human. The Disney+ app for VisionOS is fun.

Tim Sweeney on the SCOTUS Ruling 

Epic CEO Tim Sweeney:

The Supreme Court denied both sides’ appeals of the Epic v. Apple antitrust case. The court battle to open iOS to competing stores and payments is lost in the United States. A sad outcome for all developers.

Now the District Court’s injunction against Apple’s anti-steering rule is in effect, and developers can include in their apps “buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to IAP”.

As of today, developers can begin exercising their court-established right to tell US customers about better prices on the web.

It’s sad for Epic, perhaps, and game developers in general, but I think overall this is a good day for developers, and a great day for users. In-app game purchases are already too predatory, as things stand — they’d get far worse if games on iOS were free to circumvent Apple’s system. If a developer wants users to sign up and pay on their website, they can now tell them so, in plain language, in the app.

The truth should never be against the rules. If you need to pay/subscribe on the app’s website, the app should be able to tell you that you need to pay/subscribe on their website.

Supreme Court Rejects Petitions in Epic v. Apple Antitrust Case, Largely a Win for Apple 

Adi Robertson, reporting for The Verge:

The Supreme Court has denied a request to hear an antitrust dispute between Apple and Fortnite publisher Epic Games. It rejected two petitions, one from each company, this morning — leaving the case largely, but not entirely, a win for Apple. [...]

Even so, both rulings found that Apple had acted anticompetitively by barring developers from telling users about other payment methods. Apple was ordered to let them allow links and other “calls to action” that would bypass Apple’s payment system, discontinuing what are known as anti-steering policies. But the company spent years delaying parts of the change with legal appeals, winning a reprieve while the Supreme Court considered the case. Today’s denial seemingly runs out that clock, requiring Apple to reconsider the future of its anti-steering rules.

Apple’s intransigence on these anti-steering provisions has long baffled me. I’ve consistently argued that the rules should be simple: apps that want to accept in-app payments must use Apple’s IAP system, but apps should be free to inform users that they can sign up and pay on the web, outside the app. In-app: Apple’s platform, Apple’s payments system. Out-app: the open web, and apps should be able to steer customers there. 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 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.

Perhaps Apple’s thinking was that they might as well try to hold the line on these anti-steering provisions for as long as they could, thinking that today’s outcome was the worst case scenario. But I think it’s been a bad look for the company for years, and invited additional regulatory scrutiny. Regardless of whether these anti-steering provisions are legally 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.

Apple Teases New Entertainment Experiences Launching With Vision Pro 

Apple Newsroom, with some new content information for Vision Pro (finally):

With Apple Vision Pro, users can experience Apple Immersive Video, a remarkable new entertainment format pioneered by Apple. Apple Immersive Video features 180-degree 3D 8K recordings captured with Spatial Audio to transport viewers to the center of a place, moment, or story. At launch, users can enjoy a curated selection of immersive films and series on the Apple TV app at no additional cost.

That link has details about the debut titles:

  • Alicia Keys: Rehearsal Room
  • Adventure — adventure athletes in exotic locations
  • Wild Life
  • Prehistoric Planet Immersive — “Viewers will transport into the daily lives of dinosaurs, experiencing T-Rex teens crashing a quiet colony of pterosaurs on the beach until mama shows up to break up their party, and an intense battle between raptors and a pride of Triceratops in the forest.”

There’s only a handful of these new immersive experiences, but the main thrust of the Newsroom announcement is to emphasize that Vision Pro is a killer device for watching any movies or TV shows.