How Does Fiverr Get Away With Not Paying the 30% Commission on Purchases Within The App?

This is getting ridiculous. Not sure who this KMT guy is, but this is the second time I've started a thread in here requesting help, he has made comments that were factually incorrect and ignorant by his own admission, I pointed out he was wrong, and then magically all previous correspondence has been wiped from the face of the internet. Its amoral and wrong. But more importantly, it prevents this forum from actually helping other developers who are struggling with these same issues/concerns and come here for advice and guidance from more senior devs.

I'm not sure how to make this any more clear:

FIVERR IS NOT A "READER" APP. PERIOD. YOU CAN PURCHASE SERVICES ON THE APP THE SAME WAY YOU CAN ON THE WEBSITE, USING THE SAME PAYMENT API AS THE WEBSITE, FOR THE SAME PRICE AND SERVICE CHARGE AS THE WEBSITE.

If you don't belive me, just download the app and try making a purchase. Don't simply say you have no experience or knowledge of the app and speak from a position of ignorance. Try it out. Please help me and others who have posed similar questions in the past understand this.

All I am asking is what it is about their product exactly that makes their product, which in almost every case is "digital media", precluded from being considered an IAP? Not sure why this is such a difficult question, or why I can't get any sort of clarification or insight on this matter?

A reader app is a reader app not because of how the purchase is made but because of how the purchased content is handled by the app - it is just read.

>"you will see that you are able to make purchases directly in the app, and that app checkout is identical to their website's"

If it's "identical" then maybe it's not 'in the app' but actually 'on their website'. How can you say it is not on the website if it is "identical"?

>How can you say it is not on the website if it is "identical"?

Because you aren't navigated away from the app to their site to complete payment. The payment API is the same on the app as the website is all I'm saying (the option to use either PayPal, Shopify, or Apple Pay at checkout).

Which means Apple did not classify any of the services (or "gig") you can purchase on the Fiverr app as IAP. And every service offered on the website is also offered on the mobile app, for the same price and service fee.

PBK, I'd happily buy you a Fiverr "gig" so you can go through the whole process from start to finish and explain what it is I'm missing. I want someone with experience in this to help me understand.

So my question is: why? The final goods are unquestionably "digital content", are they not? Its nothing more than bytes of data, not a tangible good with physical properties (unless its printed, but again that's not how its being delivered to the customer on the app).

This whole thing is just so unnecessarily murky and muddy. This question has been asked since 2015, yet no one has been able to make a concise, decisive statement as to why Fiverr's content isn't subject to IAP's. Its simply mind-boggling.

So you made me look. From my quick review on the app store, Fiverr sells the services of developers. The developers sell the digital goods. Fiverr is not selling digital goods that would be used within their app.

This would be subject to 3.1.5 and IAP may not be used to sell these services.

Your original statement "any purchases within an app that are either digital goods or delivered digitally are considered IAP" is wrong. Here is what must be IAP: "If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app...."

By the way.....KMT is a respected contributor to these forums. I'd advise you to not use terms like 'ridiculous' and 'ignorant' in your posts until you have a bit more experience here. You can see how much experience posters have by noting their 'points' or 'level'. I am only at level 5 with 1,890 points and you are at level 1 with 0 points while KMT is at level 8 with 8,000 points. I suspect he is not the ridiculous or ignorant one here.

The waters are starting to get a bit clearer now

From what you're saying, it would come down to "services that will be consumed outside of the app" line from 3.1.5.

So, what then is considered as consumption within an app vs. outside an app? If the end product is delivered/viewable through the app, such as digital media/content that are the end result of services purchased, would that not be considered as "consumed inside the app"?

In virtually every case, what you are buying on Fiverr is an end product that is digital. Yes it is created by someone you have 'contracted' for lack of better word. So maybe that makes it a service? But the service is the creation of some form of digital content/media. Not a physical service like being driven in an Uber, or having someone show up at your door to read poetry in person.

Or am I looking at this the wrong way?

You are looking at this the wrong way and using Boolean logic incorrectly.

3.1.5 just specifies that something (services consumed outside of the app) cannot be purchased using IAP. It does not indicate when IAP must be used.

3.1.1 requires that you use IAP to "unlock features or functionality within your app".

It is unclear whether 3.1.1 covers the purchase of content that is simply displayed within the app - is that 'unlocking a functionality within your app?' Therefore, to provide more guidance there is the 'reader app' guideline 3.1.3.

One can imagine purchasing the services of a media company to create a movie. Such services might include camera's, actors, editing, marketing and distribution and cost about $100,000,000. All are 3.1.5 - services consumed outside the app - correct? But then the resulting movie is sold for $10 per copy, downloaded into the app and viewed. That $10 purchase would either have to be IAP under 3.1.1 or a reader app under 3.1.3 (depending on whether the purchase and app satisfied 3.1.3)t. But contracting for the production are still services consumed outside the app.

Let's just stick with Fiverr as our model so we can avoid confusion:

- When you purchase a "gig" on the Fiverr app, payment is processed via a third party API (i.e. PayPal). So it is not using IAP.

- "Gigs" are services that are essentially being contracted to a third-party (i.e. the seller).

- The content created by the seller is done outside of the Fiverr app, and the buyer is granted the rights to the final delivered product. So you are not simply purchasing the right to access universal content (ex. reading an ebook, watching a movie). Also, the app is not integral to any facet of the seller's creation of content.

- Access to the final product is available to the buyer both within and outside the Fiverr app. It's not "unlocking functionality in the app", but you are able to view your completed content in the app.

I still don't quite understand the wording of "goods or services consumed outside the app". So if you can access the final contracted content both within and outside of the app, does that fulfill those terms? Or is it that the services contracted are completed outside of the app? aka consumed = completed?

To your final comments, I removed part of my post because it wasn't relevant to the thread's question and I did not want to further distract from the issue at hand. Let's just focus on the topic at hand. I am incredibly appreciative for all the advice and knowledge you have provided so far, and this is the closest anyone has come to providing a concrete answer to a recurring question on this forum. We are so close to pinning down the answer once and for all!

The only substantive question here is:

> So if you can access the final contracted content ... within ... the app, does that (violate) those terms?

If 'access' consitituted unlocking functionality within the app then Apple might consider it a violation - but in that case the violation is not the contracting but of the service that made the content but rather the accessing of the new content. Or Apple might consider it simply a 'reader' app function (3.1.3) that is not a violation. Or Apple might not even realize that the content is accessed by the app since their focus will be on the contracting of services which appears to be real world services performed outside of the app for which Apple's IAP is inappropriate.

But enough with Fiverr - why do you care so much about Fiverr?

You are very welcome. I do this because of all the great advice I got from folks like "KMT" when I was a novice.

I only care about Fiverr because their app is the closest comp that I can find to our own app's model. So I am trying to figure out how they were able to convince the App Store that their services were inappropriate for IAP and therefore payment could be processed via an external API? If I can understand that, then I can have a better grasp on whether or not our app will reside under the same umbrella.

There still seems to be confusion as to whether the final content, which is the result of the third-party services contracted, being accessed via the app would make the purchase subject to IAP. Let's try framing it this way:

What if the end content (i.e. a video file) were not accessible on the app, but instead were received by the customer via some other means. For example in a file emailed to their email address, or a zip drive mailed to their home address. Then there wouldn't be any question as to whether the service contracted in the app would be designated as an IAP, since no aspect of the purchased services would be created, accessed or consumed via the app. The only function of the app would be to identify and purchase the physical services of an outside contractor, thus precluding it from IAP.

Is that correct?

I only care about Fiverr because their app is the closest comp that I can find to our own app's model. So I am trying to figure out how they were able to convince the App Store that their services were inappropriate for IAP and therefore payment could be processed via an external API? If I can understand that, then I can have a better grasp on whether or not our app will reside under the same umbrella.

There still seems to be confusion as to whether the final content, which is the result of the third-party services contracted, being accessed via the app would make the purchase subject to IAP. Let's try framing it this way:

What if the end content (i.e. a video file) were not accessible on the app, but instead were received by the customer via some other means. For example in a file emailed to their email address, or a zip drive mailed to their home address. Then there wouldn't be any question as to whether the service contracted in the app would be designated as an IAP, since no aspect of the purchased services would be created, accessed or consumed via the app. The only function of the app would be to identify and purchase the physical services of an outside contractor, thus precluding it from IAP.

See my post above. If the content could be run on the app then you still have an issue unless you are operating under 3.1.3

I have exactly the same problem. For Rev.com, freelancer.com they tolerate this. They tolerate this for one of my apps. But not for the other one. I don't know what I can tell them to convince them that a human working on something is physical even if it's delivered electronically. Any ideas?

Try to convince them that even tho they're taking a cut, the user won't come to them if there are issues with the delivery or the consumed product itself.

See the problem?