
Apple’s iPhone App Refund Policies Could Bankrupt Developers - vaksel
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/25/apples-iphone-app-refund-policies-could-bankrupt-developers/
======
patio11
Egads, the capacity for hyperbole never ceases to amaze me.

I have offered refunds for _any_ reason, no questions asked, for the last 3
years. Just between you and me, the 30 day limit on the website is a little
white lie -- I think the most ever was 2 years, 1 month after the initial
sale. I also proactively remind my customers about it if they report bugs that
I can't fix immediately.

You know how many refunds I've given out, with that absurdly generous policy?
About 3% of sales.

Now since I use a payment processor which is well-known for being developer
friendly, _chuckle_ Paypal, those refunds never cost me a penny. (+) But even
if they did cost 30%, that would be under 1% of gross sales.

You think "bankrupt" might be a little strong?

P.S. There are _numerous_ reasons why the App Store model is a terrible,
terrible deal for developers. This isn't one of them.

\+ Actually, that isn't true, come to think of it. For the 3 refunds I've
given after 90 days passed, I had to refund via check, so Paypal would have
kept their $1 in fees then. OK, so this policy has cost me $3 and change. My
bad.

~~~
bprater
I think the real problem will be how easily a refund can be generated. If it's
a one-click refund, I suspect people will buy a game, play it out and then
request a refund.

Hopefully, they require people who want refunds to jump a hoop or two.

~~~
evgen
Alternatively, developers could create games that are not played-out in a
month. It would probably also be a good policy on Apple's part to say that if
you purchase something in-game via the new in-app payment system then you
can't get a refund for the original app (or the upgrade.) This would lead to
cheap teasers that would effectively allow users to test-drive the game with
an in-app upgrade to the "real" game coming once the user has played a level
or two and decided they actually like the app.

~~~
derefr
It's a nice policy in theory, but what happens if you buy something in-app and
_they don't give it to you_? I'd say that would be the _best_ time for a
refund, of both your original price and the upgrade price, but now you're
screwed.

------
zain
Just to note, this policy isn't new. It has been in place since the SDK came
out. So far, it has been neither enforced by Apple nor abused by customers.

Source:
[http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/iPhone+news/news.asp?c...](http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/iPhone+news/news.asp?c=12333)

~~~
Ashwani
exactly! not sure why this uproar at this time but this has been there for a
while. Regardless, I am hoping that Apple will fix it either on its own or due
Facebook-style user revolt :)

~~~
dean
I suspect the uproar is coming at this time because someone actually took the
time to read the agreement, rather than automatically clicking through it.
Those agreements might say that I have to give up my first-born child and I'd
never know it. I just click through.

------
khangtoh
This doesn't make sense. I can see a refund policy within 48 hours of the
purchase to ensure no one is hoodwinked for an app that does nothing. So hold
the payment for 72 hrs and if no refund is requested, release the payment to
the developer.

90 days is just unreasonable considering the majority of apps in the appstor
have really short game play time.

Whoever making these policies changes at Apple needs stop coming up with such
policies and think twice about it. I came up with a better resolution in less
than 30 secs.

~~~
amichail
Do users need to give a good reason to receive a refund (e.g., the app crashes
frequently, misleading description, etc.)? If so, then this may not be such a
big deal.

~~~
patio11
You should never require a "good reason" for a commodity software refund:

1) Adjudicating reasons requires valuable support time. Refund and move on
does not.

2) This causes customer friction. The annoyance of the prospect of having to
justify yourself to an uncaring CS grunt in India destroys the value of having
the guarantee in the first place, which is to make purchasing from you look
like a risk-free endeavor.

3) Any customer can get a refund any time they want by calling up their credit
card company and humming a few bars about "Internet merchant did not live up
to their claims". This is called a chargeback and it means the merchant just
lost $15 to $25 plus the refunded amount.

4) Product quality is much more effective than hoops in decreasing the number
of refunds. ("Good relations with the customer" is more important than either.
You know how bedside manner is a better predictor of malpractice claims than
clinical outcomes? Same story.)

[Edit to add: incidentally, the reason Apple has refunds is to zealously
protect their "All interactions with Apple should be mindblowingly awesome for
our customers" reputation. This is the same reason that they make it
essentially impossible for developers to be anything other than an anonymous
cog behind a shiny new icon -- anything else and you're a risk to the True
Apple Brand Experience. And that is why I will never, ever develop for any
platform that insists that they own the customer relationship.]

~~~
amichail
I doubt such an approach would work 10 years from now when I predict people
will be much less honest.

~~~
numair
Human nature is not subject to Moore's Law.

------
LargeWu
The solution here is obvious: Give your apps away for free, but make up for it
in volume...

~~~
khangtoh
how do you make up for it when your app is free? unless you're doing in app
purchase or ads in your app.

~~~
nuclear_eclipse
That was the joke....

------
jackowayed
lim Apple = Microsoft

t→∞

(Eh, HN wasn't made for displaying calc, I guess.)

They're starting to show some of the monopolistic tendencies. For example,
newish iPods can only connect via iTunes (at least they said they were going
to do that), which not only kinda sucks for people who liked using a different
program that didn't suck memory, usually even when "not running", but also
made it impossible (or at least hard) for Linux users to connect iPods at all.

~~~
barrkel
Seems to me that Apple is a lot worse than Microsoft, and has been for a very
long time. Microsoft prioritizes developers much more than Apple ever has,
that I know of.

------
YuriNiyazov
The exact text says that Apple "reserves the right to keep the commission". I
don't think that's synonymous with "will always keep the commission", unless
there's something weird about legal jargon that changes the meaning of
"reserves the right". It would help to actually hear a story from an iPhone
developer who was debited the 30% commission during a refund.

------
dell9000
This is totally overboard. Apple clearly didn't intend this 'loophole' and if
it is not good for the developer (especially in such a dramatic way), it is
not good for Apple. It will change.

~~~
chollida1
> Apple clearly didn't intend this 'loophole'

How do you know?

------
TweedHeads
Apple bashing + techcrunch = no credibility at all

