
Apple Developer Program Membership Fee Waivers Now Available - Nuance
https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=01032018a
======
invalidusernam3
I wonder if I count as a nonprofit since I've spent way more in Apple
developer fees than I have made from any of my apps?

~~~
nsgi
But if you could do that you would then start making a profit, so would no
longer qualify as nonprofit ;)

If you're spending more in developer fees than you're making from the apps it
might make sense to make them free/ad-free so you can qualify as non-profit.
You would lose the possibility of turning a profit in the future, though.

Edit: Just realised it's not available to individuals/non-profit businesses,
which is a shame. If it was it could increase the number of free/ad-free apps
and maybe the quality of the app store as a whole. Plus, who says one person
can't run a non-profit. Surely they have to start somewhere like any other
organisation?

~~~
icebraining
_who says one person can 't run a non-profit_

I'm guessing: the IRS. A non-profit is a specific type of entity, not a
business model.

~~~
coldtea
That's irrelevant as to whether one person can run it.

Like an LLC -- one person can run one, it doesn't take 2.

~~~
icebraining
Right, but an LLC is still a separate entity. nsgi's question, as far as I
understood it, is why an individual can't be a non-profit without
incorporating it.

~~~
coldtea
A, that's true then. A non-profit is all about being registered as one
(incorporating etc) and not about intentions (or for that matter, not being
into it for profit).

------
tsycho
I wish they would just make the ad-hoc distribution mechanism actually useful,
by extending the expiration to say, 1 year. This would make it easier for
students/hobbyists/indies etc. to build apps for their _own_ devices.
Currently, if they build an app for themselves, it only works for 7 days
before they will have to reinstall via Xcode.

If they later want to publish to the App store, I think it's completely okay
to ask them to pay $99 then.

~~~
kgwxd
I wish they'd let anyone run whatever they wanted for whatever lenth of time
they want. Anything beyond that is a gross misuse of power.

~~~
swiley
I don't understand why this is getting downvoted. Not being able to control
what you run on your own computer is kind of ridiculous.

~~~
scarface74
Do you control what you run on a game console?

~~~
JustSomeNobody
How is this even an argument? Why is it that someone always trots out the
"well other company/industry does it" argument?

Actually, yes, I want to control what I run on a game console, a smartphone, a
router, a computer and even my refrigerator.

~~~
scarface74
If that's your desire you are free to buy an NVIDIA Shield for your game
console, an Android for your smart phone, any computer, a well known easily
hackable router, etc.

Vote with your dollars.

~~~
wasx
>Vote with your dollars.

I hate this saying. It's such a bullshit saying. a) There is no viable
competition and b) It's incredibly profitable to lock people into an
ecosystem, so even if you do "vote" with your dollars (hint: you're not
voting) every company that you've now "voted" for has an interest in locking
you into their ecosystem. The very act of "voting with your dollars" is part
of the problem. This requires a principled stand and a demand, not more
consumerism.

~~~
scarface74
I gave you plenty of examples. There are plenty of Android manufactures with
some phones more locked down than others. There are plenty of routers - some
more hackable than others. There are plenty of alternatives to dedicated game
consoles.

------
Gys
'Nonprofit organizations, accredited educational institutions, and government
entities based in the United States'

US only...

~~~
rcarmo
Yeah. I see zero reasons why this can't be extended internationally -- just
flag these developer accounts as unable to charge or profit (in any way) from
apps, including having the review process exclude anything with in-app ads
(which, IIRC, are already flagged/audited in some way).

~~~
oddevan
The delay may have something to do with complying with local laws. I suspect
that since this is limited to non-profits, Apple is claiming some portion of
this $99 as a tax deduction. If this is what is "funding" the program, then
they need to make sure the legal framework is in place in other countries.

~~~
adanto6840
Purely curiosity, but surely that can't be how it works? It kind of makes
sense at face value, but seems like a monster loophole[1], too -- I'd be
curious if anyone could point me towards more reading on the topic.

1 - Bob wants tax deductions. Bob decides to sell pencils for $50k each. Bob
discounts them to $0 for non-profits. Can Bob deduct $50k per pencil, for each
sold to a non-profit?? Maybe Bob can only deduct his _cost_ , or something?

~~~
oddevan
From what I remember of working with a non-profit, there are limits to "gift-
in-kind" donations. Apple sells the license at $99, but they can probably only
claim $50 or so since that's what the actual "cost" of an iOS developer is.

So in your example, yes, Bob could only deduct the cost of the pencils, not
his inflated "value".

------
seltzered_
Does this imply certain open source projects could setup related nonprofit
associations then waive the fee?

Could be interesting if an “app archive” nonprofit starts up to bring back
abandoned indie projects (assuming the original developer decides to open
source)

------
tootie
Why do they charge this fee at all if they're taking 30% of purchases?

~~~
jmull
1\. It's a nominal fee that keeps a certain kind of crappy app out of the
store. 2\. Apps can be released for $0, yet it costs money to host those apps.

~~~
justinhj
Apple have to approve every app before it is release so the cost to them is
really the approval process.

~~~
tootie
So charge for approvals. Why am I paying $99/yr to deploy apps to my own phone
when I am already forced to buy their phone and their computers.

~~~
BHSPitMonkey
I doubt anyone actually forced you to buy their phone and computers.

~~~
freedomben
He probably means "in order to develop iOS apps"

~~~
Spivak
Nobody forces you to develop iOS apps either. This is the point I think people
are missing. Access to Apple's walled garden is valuable enough to people that
Apple can charge for it and people will pay it.

------
saagarjha
> accredited educational institutions

Would this also extend to _students_ of said institutions wishing to
distribute free apps that they create in, say, an iOS development course?

------
HenryBemis
From what I understand, the "catch" (trade-off) is the "will distribute only
free apps".

As an example I would think that a University teacher would release his/her
app with the classroom material thus free app, mainly for the students - no
point charging as the whole effort is not a "for profit".

Same for various orgs/NGOs who would need to reach out to provide news (e.g.
United Nations).

This for me (who pays the $99) is honorable and shows that apple does indeed
separate the for-profit efforts from the non-profit efforts.

------
gwright
There is a bit of a background to this that I don't see mentioned in any of
the comments.

Since last summer's WWDC, Apple's policy regarding "templated" or white-
labeled apps has bounced around quite a bit. At one point they suggested that
cities (for example) would be required to develop their own "custom" app
rather than purchase an appropriate white-labled app from a vendor. They
imagined that the functionality could be provided via an SDK that the city
would use to build their own custom app. Pretty much a non-starter for all but
a very few large cities with a significant IT department.

In any case, they have landed on a policy that requires the apps to be
published by the municipalities directly rather than via the vendor. This
isn't entirely unreasonable as it provides a strong signal to users that the
app is "official" and lets the city promote their own brand rather than the
vendor's brand.

So apparently as a concession to the administrative overhead that this change
introduces for thousands of apps and organizations, they have introduced this
fee waiver.

All in all, I think they ended up in a reasonable place but the last six
months have been pretty frustrating as Apple figured this all out.

    
    
        https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/21/apple-goes-after-clones-and-spam-on-the-app-store/
        https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/20/apple-revises-its-controversial-guidelines-on-template-based-apps/

------
lcnmrn
Why don't make this permanent and for everyone? At least add indie developers
to the list.

~~~
drawkbox
Yeah some sort of revenue metric like 50k would be nice.

But they have the fee probably as a slight deterrent to just anyone uploading
anything or abusing many accounts/company setups as there is a cost.

------
baldajan
I think this will be interesting. But the biggest cost to these institutions
would probably be developing the app that would be published, rather than
$99/year to get it published. But that’s not accounting for volunteers...

------
fasteddie
I wonder if MOOCs and other non-profit coding schools could use this to get
their students apps distributed. Perhaps the risk would be too much, but would
be cool to see Udacity or someone allowing first time progammers to release
for their first time.

------
maxehmookau
Oh this is great!

Unless you're a non-US non-profit. Thanks a bunch Apple.

------
Eun
Finally, after this long time...

------
ybercyber
Apple development fees are wayy too big compared to value of the google and
user experience..

------
zghst
Good Apple!

