Apple’s At It Again, This Time With WordPress

Posted on August 22, 2020 by Paul Thurrott in Apple, Mobile, iOS with 73 Comments

Apple blocked updates to the WordPress blogging app until it added in-app payments for plan upgrades so that Apple can receive a 30 percent cut.

“Heads up on why WordPress for iOS updates have been absent,” WordPress’s Matt Mullenweg tweeted. “We were locked by [the Apple] App Store. To be able to ship updates and bug fixes again we had to commit to support[ing] in-app purchases for .com plans.”

Yes, it’s gotten this silly: In the past, Apple simply allowed services with free and paid options to not advertise the paid options inside their apps. But now Apple is going after services that do have paid options and it is requiring them to offer those options with in-app payments (IAPs) so that Apple can collect a 30 percent fee each time.

Apple fans will at least appreciate Mullenweg’s attitude: He says that he is “big believer in the sanctity of licenses” and that WordPress “agreed to this license when we signed up for (and stayed in) the App Store,” so he going to “follow and abide by the rules” and do “what they [Apple] asked us to.”

However, he also says that there are many apps in the iOS App Store not advertising their paid options or offering a way to pay for them inside the app. And he assumes that Apple will go after them soon as well. “My guess is they will get similar feedback soon so I’d encourage them to start making IAP plans,” he writes.

The dictator appreciates your support, Matt. Good boy.

Tagged with ,

Join the discussion!


Don't have a login but want to join the conversation? Become a Thurrott Premium or Basic User to participate

Comments (73)

73 responses to “Apple’s At It Again, This Time With WordPress”

  1. jglathe

    There must be a reason for Apple to squeeze so hard. Can‘t imagine how this cannot backfire in the long term.

    • Vladimir Carli

      In reply to jglathe:

      it might not backfire or at least not enough because they are gigantic and any loss due to consumer dissatisfaction is like a fly on an elephant. This needs to be stopped by legislators and also quickly, until it’s possible. The market cap of two trillion is equivalent to the GDP of Italy, a country in the G7. This is going way out of hand. Give them a few more years and one of these gigantic corporations (not necessarily Apple but any of them) will just start disregarding the law and no one will be able to do anything about it. So Apple fan or not I suggest everyone gives a deep thought about the situation and starts evaluating the risks involved.

    • Paul Thurrott

      In reply to jglathe:

      It does seem pathological, like they want someone to stop them.

  2. beckoningeagle

    Phone carriers should just ask Apple for 30% of all iPhone related revenues, or not carry the iPhone at all. See how Apple likes that one.

    • SvenJ

      In reply to BeckoningEagle: Phone companies already get a tremendous cut of the revenue. The ability to make those store and in app purchases is based on you giving money to the phone company every month. They keep 100% of that. You do have a choice, though. You can take out the SIM and only use WiFi.

  3. waethorn

    Why does anybody need an app to edit a website?? There's something inherently wrong with that design.

    • longhorn

      In reply to Waethorn:

      Because they don't own a big screen with precision input? An app can be tailor-made for fingers and small screens.

    • SvenJ

      In reply to Waethorn: Because sometimes you are not near a PC or desktop when you notice a mistake that needs to be fixed, or need to upload a post or picture now. Same reason there banking apps when you could 'easily' do the same thing on their web site on your phone.
      • waethorn

        In reply to SvenJ:

        I use the browser on my phone to access my bank because they're intelligent enough to not require a mobile app. Why would I want my bank to have access to my contacts, photos, location history, messages, etc. anyway?

  4. anoldamigauser

    Got to show Wall Street growth in services to get that higher multiple of a software and services company. The App Store is a very large part of that story.

  5. bschnatt

    Even Gordon Gekko is shaking his head and saying "WTF?" (Yes, I realize Gordon Gekko isn't real - save your hatred for someone else...)

  6. bschnatt

    Well, this pretty much nails the coffin shut for me. I have toyed with the idea of developing for iOS (along with other platforms), but I refuse to work with such a company. Yes, I'm walking away from money, but at least I can sleep at night...

  7. toukale

    There is a simple way to stop Apple, create a new product category that can replace the iPhone. That's what Apple did in 2007 to change the landscape, remember, the "rules of the game are written by the victors." In this case Apple and Google writes the rules, governments can fine them (means nothing) but they can't change consumers behaviors. So the best solution is to out innovate them (good luck on that one, I don't see anyone doing that any time soon).

  8. reformedctrlz

    What’s worse is that the .com plans aren’t even related to the website builder tools in the app. It’s a completely separate thing that Apple decided needed to be in the app so they could get their cut. I don’t mind the idea of Apple getting their cut of things, but forcing people into it is nonsense.

  9. brettscoast

    And there I thought Apple was being a good corporate citizen. Their insane lust for money and power over all and sundry is quite frankly sickening. Good luck paying your Apple taxes cause that's not going away anytime soon.

  10. codymesh

    Apple is the most greedy company on this planet.

    The fact that WordPress also basically folded...i'm shaking my head. The market has "self-regulated" once again.

  11. JH_Radio

    SO a thought from a consumers prospective. doesn't this make things easier as a consumer? I wouldn't say I'm an apple fan with no room to grow as I do have android and more PCS than I actually need.

  12. yaddamaster

    Don't use iOS. Side load Android.

    Maybe in five years there will be a market for another platform.

  13. Daekar

    Again... WHY do you need an app for this functionality? I don't know how many illustrations we need for people to realize that depending on an app is a huge liability - if you can do the job without one, you should.

  14. wright_is

    TC: "Hmm, we are being investigated for abusing our position. What can we do make it look like we aren't abusing our position?"

    Accounting Baffoon: "How about we get all companies providing services outside of Apple Store to have to use Apple Payments?"

    TC: "Brilliant, make it so!"

    DOH! What are these idiots smoking. They seem to be burying their heads in the sand whilst simultaneously building up more and more bad press.

  15. Mcgillivray

    Let's be realistic.

    If the complainers get what they want - I can guarantee you this is exactly what will happen.

    Within 7 days - every single app on the app store - will be free. Every single one.

    And every single one of those apps will have a button for people to upgrade to the full version, or IAP's - that bypass the app store payment requirements - and suddenly the App store will be making $0 per day.

    Just like that. What people seem to complain about, and want : if it was my physical - retail store - I would tell people to F off I'm not going to give them shelf space, let them advertise their products for 24/7 while sitting in my store, but , I make nothing since it's priced Free, but when they leave the store there's a button they press on the product to then pay for the product.

    That's not even shoplifting. That's just horrible business if I allowed it.

    Again, no. Keep your products out of my store if you're not willing to pay me what I am asking - what I am asking you to agree to - before - you put your products here.

    • nbplopes

      In reply to Mcgillivray:

      #and suddenly the App store will be making $0 per day”

      If for some devs is just what they require, App Hosting and Installer/Updater and bandwidth maybe they should be allowed to pay just for that.

      Now the App Store provides other services, such as cataloguing/listing, reviews and advertises the App ... maybe developers could pay for that separately as per need.

      The App Store also provides payment services. Maybe they could make their payment mandatory (Apple Pay), yet approve other secure payment services.

      As for SDKs and IDE maybe they could do a subscription model per developer like MS does no?

      Finally, for less sophisticated digital business maintain this model as an option. For some digital businesses this model alone dips into their value. This is the fundamental issue. For others, might not be an issue at all.

      There are many ways for Apple to make money. It’s does not need to be 0% or 30%/15% shared revenue. This is a false dichotomy, a fallacy.

    • proftheory

      In reply to Mcgillivray:

      Lets say you buy an Apple car. Then you want to beef up the suspension by going elsewhere for the upgrade. Does the dealership deserve a portion of the price of the upgrade even though it was done outside of the dealership?

      As for your comment that all apps would be free and paid for out of the store Apple could just charge a minimum fee for all apps in the store. And Apple doesn't do any more for a 10$ app vs. a $100 app so why should one pay more than the other?

      Cult of Apple - I am not a member.

      • Greg Green

        In reply to proftheory:

        You can ‘side load’ parts to your ford truck, and ford shouldn’t get a cut, but they should be allowed to void your warranty. So you buy parts through the ford dealer and pay what they require.

        You can side load apps to iPhone. Apple shouldn't get a cut of that, but they should be allowed to void a warranty. So you buy parts through the apple store and pay what they require.

        ford has a ‘monopoly’ on parts in the ford store and apple has a ‘monopoly’ on apps in the App Store.

        my apologies for misuse of the word monopoly, but few here seem to understand its real definition.

    • psel

      In reply to Mcgillivray:

      I see this type of retail store comparison comment on every tech forum, the thing is retail stores are not locking people to use only their stores, you can advertise about your product in lot of ways and show people which store carries it and then people can go buy there.

      Simply put - Apple is trying make money in everything they do - I don't have a concern with that as it is their business. But when I buy a phone/device I should be given a choice where I get stuff from. It is not they're giving a free device and so locking it.

  16. Vladimir Carli

    In reply to Hawaiianteg:

    ‘thanks for the “rabid dog” comparison. Really appreciated

  17. stevek

    Wow. I applauded Epic's fight in this but it wasn't enough to make me think about getting rid of my iPhone.

    This really might be...the Wordpress app has nothing to do with the site hosting and they are forcing them to add payment with a 30% cut to the service that Apple has nothing to do with, nor the app has nothing to do with really.

    And for all those going...but what about Playstation and Xbox with their cuts.

    The issue is not a closed system for app purchases...its for forcing addition purchases through that same 30% cut.

    Xbox/Playstation etc...don't take a cut of your Netflix subscription even though you can watch Netflix on the app on the console.

  18. SRLRacing

    I have to submit an app to Apple as a companion piece to a physical product I am launching in the next couple weeks. I hope to hell they don't try to pull any of this crap on me. I can't afford to play their games it would literally put me out of business before I ever made it to market.

  19. hellcatm

    I don't understand why people use products of companies that pull this type of thing? apple is huge and they over charge on everything from their handsets, to their macs and their app store. facebook does many things that's bad for security and for Democracy. At least with Google you know what they do and you cannot use their services even on their phones and ChromeOS devices. apple puts such a tight leash on their users they have to use their services. apple is the richest company in the world even though they're not #1 in anything, they don't have the #1 mobile or PC, they're not #1 in music streaming, they're not #1 in anything yet they're rich on the backs of the people who buy their stuff and complain that they can't do this, or that. Almost every apple user knows their getting hosed but because they like their product they're willing to take it. It's pretty sad.

    • zeratul456

      In reply to HellcatM:

      Most people don't care, and aren't the slightest bit interested in what their services do behind the scenes. They just want their products to work.

    • RobertJasiek

      In reply to HellcatM:

      It is because there is too little choice in the tech world. Simply speaking, only two smartphone OSs, no serious alternative for iPad-like tablet hardware, too few CPU manufacturers, software migration is often not worth the effort, Facebook buying WhatsApp resulting in greater concentration etc.

      • hellcatm

        In reply to RobertJasiek:

        Yeah well if people bought Windows Phone or one of the other phones with different OS' that came, then things would have been different. It's not like apple just started doing this either, it's been happening since before the iphone. People let this happen because they get complacent.

        I'm just sick of people complaining about companies while they use thier products. Complaining doesn't do anything, it's all about actions but no one wants to act and that's why we have companies like apple and facebook. It's just like the DOJ mergers of big companies then years down the line they investigate them. If I can see a big company buying another one is a bad thing why don't they?

        • Daishi

          In reply to HellcatM:

          I'm just sick of people complaining about companies while they use thier products

          Well when the only choices are between Apple, who I think we can all agree are bad actors, and Google, who are, at least, every bit as bad and probably worse, which phones would you like people to use that they shouldn’t then complain about the company that made it?

          • hellcatm

            In reply to Daishi:
            I disagree that Google is worse than apple. I use an Android phone but I don't use Chrome as my default browser, I don't use Google for search (yes I use Bing), I don't use to Google email app (I have a couple Gmail accounts but I use them to sign up for junk I don't care about)...etc. Its very difficult to do this in the apple ecosystem because from what I understand you can't make Chrome your default browser and apple makes you dependent on their services.

            Google isn't perfect by any means, but at least you have choice which apple would take away 100% if they could. So, I don't complain about my Android phone, I know they're doing a little spying, but I'm able to make sure I make it as little as possible so I don't see ads in my email because of Google search and such.

  20. dwindleflip

    What's next? Apple going to charge Broadband companies for access to Apple's ethernet ports?

  21. Saarek

    I don't see the issue here, in fact I remember Paul himself commenting on how reasonable the 30% fee was when the App Store was first released.

    What's changed, why was it reasonable then and not reasonable now?

    Apple poured billions of dollars into a platform that they created and are now reaping the benefits. But along with them how many developers have made a healthy living out of the platform that Apple has created?

    There are plenty of closed platforms around, Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft themselves being just the tip of the iceberg with their consoles.

    If you want access to one billion plus customers and all of the benefits that come with said access then pay up or shut up.

    • bobmi

      In reply to Saarek:. So, if you owned a Ford truck you would have no problem sending Ford a check equal to 30% of the cost of anything you carried home from the store with the truck?

      • Mcgillivray

        In reply to BobMI: That makes no sense at all. Let me see if I can get some reality here for you.


        But, if I bought a Ford truck, and then told ford Ford I wanted to put my product in their Ford store, so other Ford customers with trucks could also buy it - and they said to me ok - but we want 30% of the profits you take for putting your product in our store and keeping it available 24/7 for your customers to see and shop - I would say ok that sounds fair.

        What everybody (people like you) wants is to be able to put their product into the store - and charge $0 for it so the store gets $0 - but have a button in the product the customer can press so the developer then gets paid and the store that has done the admirable job of hosting your product gets $0 for their work.

        • RobertJasiek

          In reply to Mcgillivray:

          It is not like that when we speak of apps whose major purpose is generating income for the developer by in-app purchases of digital media.

          Such apps tend to cost the user $0 as apps, but that does not mean that Apple would receive $0. Instead, Apple earns from the yearly fee for the developer using the app store and the Apple hardware it sales so that users can use the app on an Apple device.

          In-app digital media can be stored anywhere: on any server or an Apple's app store server. If a developer does not use Apple's app store server and does not use Apple's payment system, then Apple does not do any work related to purchases of in-app digital media.

          Currently, Apple mandates usage of both to collect 30% (in the case of subcriptions, 15% in follow-up years). The question is whether Apple's mandatory rules are legal by the laws and, if the courts find yes before politicians act, when legistations will render it illegal.

          We know, Apple will earn much less: almost nothing from in-app purchases. Excellent! Preventing a too rich company from becoming excessively rich preserves world economy and prevents revolutions from the poor.

    • Wondering_Bard

      In reply to Saarek:

      It's reasonable as long as Apple offers a way to opt out of accepting payments from the app. But Apple is suddenly forcing each company to add in-app purchases for every service the company offers so that Apple can take 30% of their revenue. The company can't even choose to not take payments from the app.

      Oh and BTW, the app store guidelines specifically say that you can't just add a 30%"tax" to your normal fee. Apple WILL block your app if you do that.

      There aren't many businesses that can afford to just lose 30% of their revenue like this. Apparently WordPress can, which surprises me, but this policy would kill most small businesses. You either have to build your entire business plan around Apple's 30% cut or you just don't have a presence on the app store.

      Personally, I encourage businesses to start pulling their apps from the app store. We'll see how long consumers keep buying iPhones when their app store starts to look more and more like the Windows Phone app store.

    • RobertJasiek

      In reply to Saarek:

      Maybe 30% for selling app licenses is ok (unless courts judge differently) - it is like the rent a supermarket (or book store) pays the renter. However, 30% of in-app-purchases are absolutely not ok - it is like the renter also reveiving 30% for all food (or books) sold in the supermarket. The renter ought to earn 0% from the food (or books). The app store owner may earn slightly more than 0% if and only if a sale of files involves his data processing - like PayPal or credit card issuers earn ca. 3% transaction fees.

      • Saarek

        In reply to RobertJasiek:

        Not quite, in this case the rent is free. Instead of paying rent you pay a 30% cut on everything you sell. If you don't see anything or if you give your app away for free there is no fee.

        Apple gives you what you need to make a living for free. Xcode tools, swift language, developer support, etc. I appreciate you need to buy a Mac, but they start at just £499 one off and everyone needs to buy their tools.

        In 2008 Apple was lauded for being so reasonable with their 30% cut, now the market is so much bigger and so much more profitable for developers and they are seen as the evil bad guy.

        And who is making the big headline stink about the 30% cut? Large multi million dollar companies that want more profit. It's not about you, the user, they just want more for themselves.

        • RobertJasiek

          In reply to Saarek:

          "In 2008 Apple was lauded for being so reasonable with their 30% cut": Was the about 30% for app selling or about 30% for in app purchases?

          I have not meant "rent" as a 1:1 analogy. The rent in my examples is not a rent for a developer using the app store.

          The 30% cut is criticised by quite a few a) big developer companies, b) small developers, c) would-be developers and d) endconsumers (who have to pay more for in-app purchases because the 30% cut has the side effect of increases prices).

    • navarac

      In reply to Saarek:

      If you don't see an issue here, you must be wearing rose tinted glasses - or more likely blacked-out lenses.

    • codymesh

      In reply to Saarek:

      because the WordPress app is free? and they're not selling the subscriptions in the app? But Apple is demanding that any app with a subscription service give them their business?

      • frank_costanza

        In reply to codymesh:

        Apple is requiring (demanding?) that apps hosted on Apple's platform offer in-app purchases through Apple's platform. Apps can still use a direct pay model via the app's own web site (provided they have one, which WordPress does). Consumers can go to an app's web site and purchase directly. Thus all proceeds will go to the app maker, if you are so inclined.

        • Daishi

          In reply to frank_costanza:

          The developer just can’t offer a link to that alternative payment site or mention it or the fact that by buying in the app their customers are paying Apple nearly a third of the price of the service...

    • nbplopes

      In reply to Saarek:

      If you have a digital business you need to where you customer are. Case in case in the US one in two Americans use iPhones. So your choice it’s a fallacy.

      The fact is. There is no iOS market. It’s a fallacy. There is a digital services market empowered by the Internet, loads of private and state money poorer into such a infrastructure and Apple managed to get within mobile digital services 50% of that market ransome through their devices. They never advertised that would be the case to their customers.

      If Apple does not have a business model that does not require dipping into value not delivered should get the hell out. In the EU they will.

      Full stop.

    • frank_costanza

      From Mac Rumors:

      "According to Apple's ‌App Store‌ Review Guidelines, apps that offer access to paid digital content or services need to use the in-app purchase system.

      Apps that operate across several platforms can let users access content, subscriptions, and features that they've paid for outside of the ‌App Store‌ (like on, but Apple's rules say those items must also be available as in-app purchases in the iOS app."

      So apps can use other payment systems. But they must also offer the option of an in-app purchase.

      Sounds ok to me.

      • SvenJ

        In reply to frank_costanza: Given that wording, I would think Apple is virtually obligated to enforce that requirement. That's independent of whether it is right, fair, or whatever. If the terms say you cannot use other than the Apple payment system, or if you sell services outside the store you must also offer them in the store, those terms must be enforced, or Apple would lose legal standing. Much like failing to protect a trademark or copyright, reduces a companies rights to that IP. I imagine there is some leeway to negotiating exceptions/variations, as in the case with Amazon, but they are still enforcing their rules. Rules that were freely agreed to.

        • RobertJasiek

          In reply to SvenJ: Rules that were freely agreed to.

          Not that freely. In the OS oligopol, there is no real freedom of choice because the alternative is to not do business of developing mobile softwares.

    • Andi

      In reply to Saarek:

      I'll tell you what has changed. Apple and Google won; they locked the market and achieved duopoly(Sony, MS and Nintendo do not have mobile platforms). As we speak Apple is standing at 58% market share. When you reach this level things change. That's what Epic is forcing; change through the courts. The smartphone tax made sense in 2010, going forward perhaps its exclusivity has outlived its purpose.

      Just because 1 billion people bought iphones doesn't tie them to Apple. When you interract with Spotify from within the iphone you are Spotify's customer, not Apple's. Apple doesn't own people nor the iphones they sold.

      • Saarek

        In reply to Andi:

        Apple specifies that if you offer a payment option outside of iOS you must also have the option for people to sign up and pay within iOS. Hardly unreasonable.

        Your logic regarding the 30% says "It's ok for people like Nintendo to do this, but not Apple & Google", your position makes no sense.

        Epic is hardly some white knight in shining armour, they just want to avoid the cost of doing business to increase their own profits. Like you, they are seemingly happy to pay Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo 30% but not Apple or Google.

        In any business there are costs of doing business. Developers on iOS have earned over 155 Billion Dollars since the App Store was released. iOS as a platform is also far more profitable for developers than Android with around twice as much paid out. Part of that profitability is precisely because it is a lot more locked down meaning that theft of apps is far more difficult.

  22. pachi

    I don’t have a huge issue with requiring purchases through a secure medium in their App Store apps - and added benefit of hopefully the purchase being there forever (have had license issues with random PC programs that use licenses).

    I have an issue with the massive cut. I have an issue with BS like this. Just absolute insanity, where does this line end???. I also wouldn’t have an issue if these companies added extra fees to account for the Apple cut. But not sure this is allowed(?)

  23. RonV42

    It's time for those service providers to have a two tier price. One for signing up on a Apple device and one for signing up using other methods like a browser. I am sure that Apple has some clause in their agreement that prevents it but wouldn't adding 30% to a produce price be shown on the checkout page within the app?

    When I worked in Telecom and the FCC increased access fees by 100% we put a line item on the bill that stated that this fee is mandated by the office of the xyz and included the phone number of that office to file complains. The government office stated that the source of the fee increase was agreed to be hidden by the carriers but we went against the hidden tax because senior life line phone service fees were doubling and didn't want to be the bad guy.

    • rob_segal

      In reply to RonV42:

      This may go against Apple's dev agreement, too. I recall the price of the iap cannot be inflated.

      • SvenJ

        In reply to rob_segal: That isn't the case for Youtube Premium. The in app price is about 30% higher than the price using a web browser. Noticed that about a month ago. Cancelled from the app and re-signed up from Safari.

      • Jogy

        In reply to rob_segal:

        Hmm, if a store charged 30% tax on purchases, then at least part of cost should be passed over to the customers. After all, they are who benefit from having that safe and convenient store, so they should pay the premium (as they already did when buying Apple hardware). Of they do not want to pay extra, then they can look for alternatives.

        Event without the 30% tax on the subscription purchases, the developer is paying - for access to the Apple Store (was it $100/year ?), for Mac machines (required to be able to compile for iOS), etc.

  24. reefer2

    You dont reach a 2 trillion market cap for nothing. More seriously, Apple is digging its pro verbial digital store grave here with its arrogant and excessive greedy behaviour, legislators and courts will take note, eventually.

    • Jorge Garcia

      In reply to reefer2:

      Yeah a lot of people are missing the bigger picture of what is finally happening. It is perfectly OK for Apple to have a curated, sanitized App store on their computers (smartpone) and demand a margin for that "luxury" (Although 30% is insane). But what the courts will eventually have to determine is whether or not the consumer who purchases a personal computer is entitled to install whatever software they wish on it, which to me the answer is OF COURSE THEY ARE. In which case, Apple would have to allow third party app stores to exist on iOS.

  25. Michael Uhlman

    Can we talk about whats not called out here, the reason the app was blocked in the first place was because they were skirting around the in app purchase rules. They are providing links within the app to sign up for paid plans on their website that bypasses apples requirement. They could have removed the links to their website but instead chose to add the IAP option which Mullenweg admitted. If youd like to verify this yourself click on your profile picture > help & support > how do I upgrade my site? then click on plans, it opens safari and takes you to the page to purchase a plan and circumventing Apples IAP.

    Should the rule be different is separate from the fact the right now the app is breaking the rules that are there. I think the rules should change and that's a fight in itself, but until those rules change, you need to follow whats there or expect Apple to take action.

    • scovious

      In reply to mau47:

      The rules will never change if people don't expose open corruption by raising their voices and draw attention to issues. The only times movements ever succeed is when they snowball, and with multiple antitrust investigations, apple blocking game streaming, blocking external app stores, commanding over 50% of the US market, demanding higher fees from publishers like WSJ, and now this? By breaking the rules, companies can expose how Apple retaliates and uses its market power to inflict its will.

    • codymesh

      In reply to mau47:

      ???? so the only solution to this problem is to give Apple money?

    • MikeCerm

      In reply to mau47:

      Apple's abuse here is worse than you're describing. WordPress told Apple that they would remove whatever Apple found objectionable. Apple said that they would only unblock the app if WordPress agreed to enable IAP. So WordPress has developed a free app for editing WordPress sites (self-hosted or, and they don't want any money, but they cannot publish this app unless they implement a system by which Apple can get paid. That's crazy.

      It's one thing to say, "if you accept payment in the app, you must use our payment system, and you cannot mention other methods of purchase outside of the app." That's abusive, but that's the rule. It's a whole new level of abuse to say, "your app must use our IAP system."

      • SvenJ

        In reply to MikeCerm: But, there is no requirement to have anything for sale in the app. They could just have a free app to edit WordPress sites with no mention of 'plans'. If there was no such mention, I would think Apple would have a hard time justifying the enforcement of a an in app purchase functionality. Or have it and don't offer anything for sale.

        • MikeCerm

          In reply to SvenJ:

          As of yesterday, there was: Apple blocked the WordPress app and was forcing WordPress to add in-app purchases. However, the Verge reported today that Apple has changed their mind, apologized, and will allow WordPress to simply remove the offending link to info about paid options. It seems Apple caved to pressure of bad press, or someone at Apple messed up and the app shouldn't have been blocked.

          This this should probably serve as a lesson to all the people out there who were defending Apple original position (forcing WordPress to add IAP), before Apple backtracked: don't defend the indefensible. Ask yourself why you were defending a position so wrong that not even Apple will now defend it, perhaps because it was never even Apple's policy to begin with, just a mistake made by someone on their app review team.

  26. Chris_Kez

    I appreciated Andy Ihnatko's take on this:

  27. spiderman2

    what a surprise /s

    classic apple