
Apple gave me the Hey treatment back in 2014 - firloop
https://ylukem.com/blog/apple-gave-me-the-hey-treatment-back-in-2014
======
realtalk_sp
The fact that Apple is scrubbing text communications and discussing certain
sensitive things with developers only over the phone is supremely shady.
Deleting old communications is a classic tactic employed by organizations that
anticipate lawsuits and associated discovery. It's amazing that they've
formulated a comprehensive set of internal business practices directed at
sustaining this racket.

~~~
praptak
> Deleting old communications is a classic tactic employed by organizations
> that anticipate lawsuits and associated discovery.

Every sufficiently big organisation starts doing it soon after the first bogus
lawsuit that costs them millions of dollars.

~~~
paulryanrogers
As a trillion dollar company with hundreds of billions in the bank we can
expect more from them. And if the legal system has perverse incentives that
should be fixed through reform, not apathy.

~~~
praptak
I don't think that any reform of the legal system can get rid of people whose
business model is litigation. You can't get rid of legal trolls without
denying justice to actual victims of corporate wrongdoing.

Also, I would be extremely suspicious of any reform of the legal system coming
from megacorps.

This is not to say the system cannot be improved, it's just wicked hard and
you cannot blame any single actor for not doing that.

~~~
pedrorijo91
maybe it's time for ios developers to (temporary) remove their apps from the
App Store as a protest?

Taking 30% without providing alternatives to install apps seems totally unfair

------
gameswithgo
Developers really should stage a revolt on both Google and Apple's mobile
phone ecosystems. They have ruined computing for users (locked down systems
with no ability to tinker) and make it impossible to have any viable business
on their platforms, since they have total control over you, can shut you down
at any time without recourse, and retroactively change terms. It is part of a
larger trend of evolving business world where small players are doomed.

~~~
juanbyrge
Is the alternative really better? Look at Windows, which had no restrictions
on apps that you could install. It was a security nightmare and became a
cesspool of malware. You just had to trick people into opening a .exe and you
could compromise the machine. Most consumers are dumb and it should not be
possible to trick them into installing arbitrary binaries.

~~~
grawprog
>Is the alternative really better? Look at Windows, which had no restrictions
on apps that you could install.

I can do the same thing on linux yet my computer's not a cesspool of malware.

>Most consumers are dumb and it should not be possible to trick them into
installing arbitrary binaries.

No, most users are uneducated and don't care and expect computers to be safe
the way other things are. This doesn't make them dumb, this doesn't mean they
need to be treated like children. This means the information needs to be
communicated to them more effectively'

Most users are adults capable of dealing with the myriad of dangerous things
life brings. This is because most things come with adequate instructions and
warnings.

Operating systems follow two extremes, they give no fucks and let you do what
you want with minimal instruction or they lock you up and tell you what to do.
Both of these are inadequate for average people and don't reflect the way most
things worked, up until relatively recently when businesses decided people
needed to be treated like children.

Computers are heavily integrated with daily life. Treating users like a bunch
of kids that need safety padding is insulting and ridiculous. If there's a
failing at the general public in understanding these concepts, it's a failing
both in education and honestly, a collective elitism that places people who
know technology above regular people, reflected both among regular people in
the tech community and large tech companies that results in either them being
taken advantage of or manipulated, or again being treated as invalids incable
of looking after themselves.

~~~
zimpenfish
> Most users are adults capable of dealing with the myriad of dangerous things
> life brings.

While I'd like to believe that, injury and death statistics from things like
road accidents, smoking, alcohol, etc.; the number of machines owned in
botnets; and the overall response to COVID-19 is not convincing evidence of
this.

~~~
grawprog
Yet the general population also wakes up every day, exists on a rock hurtling
through space at ridiculous speeds, exist for years on end doing all kinds of
things. They wake up and do things you or I are incapable of.

You can look at all the dumb shit humanity does and scorn it all you want then
stop and think about the fact that, you me and everyone else is here with all
the things around us. This shit didn't come from nowhere. Humanity, for all
it's faults and weaknesses did this and you exist because of this.

The average person, as much as that implies, is capable of some pretty
impressive things and to dismiss them is pretty arrogant and I bet if you took
a look at your life you've done some pretty dumb shit...and if not I salute
you, you are truly above all others.

~~~
zimpenfish
> The average person, as much as that implies, is capable of some pretty
> impressive things

They are also capable of some pretty stupid and self-destructive things, too,
even in the face of "adequate instructions and warnings".

------
donttakemyapps
Throwaway for reasons.

I have >10 apps for external clients currently in the App Store that are
exactly like Hey (not email clients though), focussed on business+consumer
clients, with a login and you have to order outside the store to be able to
login. We even reference to that in some of the apps. You can't do anything in
the app until you pay for a subscription on the repspective site. The most
recent one got approved 2 months ago, and some apps are >2 years old and have
received regular updates.

The difference may be that they do not have the revenue Basecamp has.

In the past when an app got refused, we resubmitted without changes and got
approved. It's a shitshow.

~~~
taneq
The justification seems to be that "without a login it's useless" \- could you
get around that by having a demo mode that lets you use the app with a dummy
account?

------
fossuser
I know YouTube premium just charges a 30% up charge if you sign up via IAP in
iOS.

I’m not sure if this is in violation of the rules or not.

It is convenient as a user to be able to manage subscriptions via iOS which
makes it easy to track and cancel, but 30% seems way too high for this?

Forcing IAP while taking a 30% cut seems like rent seeking when [edit: you
control the only place users can get apps on your platform]. Extra problematic
in the Spotify case where you compete directly and undercut them.

I’d prefer a forced IAP requirement where Apple didn’t take a cut (or they
just charged some up front fee or something).

(Meta: McTossOut, your comments are dead - I’m not sure why)

~~~
paxys
I think it's fair TBH. If Apple thinks it's okay asking for (rather enforcing)
a 30% cut to offer the user the convenience of paying via IAP rather than
enter a credit card number, then it should be okay to charge the user 30%
extra for that convenience as well.

~~~
jacurtis
> it's okay asking for ... a 30% cut to offer the user the convenience of
> paying via IAP rather than enter a credit card number

I do agree with you that it is ok (and arguably "fair") for Apple to charge a
30% fee for the convenience of IAPs. However, the real debate here is that
some developers don't want IAPs, so should Apple be allowed to force them to
add them?

Like the current HEY example, the developers aren't even taking money in the
app, or allowing sign-ups in the app. You must be an already existing customer
to use the app. But Apple is strong-arming them to add this functionality and
to use these APIs that Apple gets a cut through. Should Apple be allowed to
force them to add an feature to sign up and pay in the app (a function that
was never planned or intended by the developers) just so that Apple can get
their cut.

In OP's post he was strong-armed the same way. He had no need for any IAPs at
all. He didn't even let users sign up in the app. In fact, the title of his
app included the phrase "Existing users only". Yet Apple forced him to add
functionality to enable IAP in the app to sign up new users, when his app is
literally titled and designed around existing users and not new users. I would
argue that this triggers the Anti-trust alarm bells.

Sure if you want to take advantage of the convenience that IAP provides, then
let Apple charge whatever they want. If the amount is too high then developers
would stop using it because it wouldn't match the value that Apple provides by
their convenience. But what if I don't need in-app-purchases. Should
developers be forced to add them when the app isn't even designed to use/need
them? What if a developer doesn't need the convenience of IAPs and wants to
take a credit card themselves? Shouldn't they be allowed to? The only argument
that Apple makes in this fight is "We own the platform that ~50% of American
smartphones, and if you want to participate in that market then you need to
share the wealth you generate". Again, it sounds an awful lot like a monopoly.

Another example is Kindle and Audible. Apple won't let users buy Kindle or
Audible books through the iOS App even though Amazon already has those credit
cards associated with its' users' accounts. Kindle could enable one-click
purchases (or even force you to type in a credit card every time), but Apple
won't let them sell any books at all through the iOS app, citing the same
rules as above.

~~~
fossuser
I think the reasoning behind IAPs is not that IAP is provided as a convenience
service to developers, but that IAPs represent value to the iOS users.

If you're using iOS and searching through the app store and then download an
app, being able to sign up and pay via the app is useful to you. If you
download an app and it doesn't do anything, and you can't sign up or pay via
the app then that's a bad experience.

The problem with this argument is it's a lot weaker when Apple also forces you
to pay a massive tax when enabling this. I think the argument would be a lot
stronger if they forced IAP compatibility, but didn't take a cut and just
charged a reasonable up front fee to list on the app store.

I'd argue even an up front fee is unnecessary though. I'm happy with Apple
curating the app store to prevent spam and low quality applications, I'm happy
with them forcing standards like IAP, but I'm not happy with them controlling
the store and then rent seeking.

Apple should make money from making and selling incredible products. That's
why people love them.

~~~
OkGoDoIt
They do charge an upfront fee, it’s $100 per year for a developer to be
allowed to publish an app, regardless of if the app is free or paid or uses
IAP.

~~~
scarface74
$100 a year is nothing considering just the time it takes to review an app.

~~~
anoncake
Apple is the one that insists on reviewing each app so it's the one that
should pay for it.

~~~
scarface74
Right because the alternative has worked real well - letting any random app on
the store. I specifically don’t download any random crap on my computer but I
do on my iOS devices. You can’t even trust known companies like DropBox and
Zoom. They have both done shady things on the Mac.

I’m sure you also think that physical good stores should bare all of the cost
and allow companies to sell things for free without a markup...

~~~
anoncake
Surrendering freedom and giving power to unelected people, be they monarchs,
dictators or CEOs, has never worked well.

> I?m sure you also think that physical good stores should bare all of the
> cost and allow companies to sell things for free without a markup...

I'm sure you know that's a strawman.

~~~
scarface74
Well we can talk theory or we can hobby history. How well has the open
ecosystem on computers worked for the average consumer? Viruses, malware,
ransomware, adware dozens of toolbars on their browser, programs randomly
uploading their contacts, etc.

I know plenty of people who won’t download random apps on their computer but
will on their mobile devices. Because they have had bad experiences before.

~~~
anoncake
Nobody wants to force people to download apps from untrustworthy sources or to
ban app stores.

------
andy_ppp
When Tim Cooke went on about services I didn’t realise he meant stealing 30%
of other people’s. Seems insane to me this racketeering is legal, I actually
think people should be jailed for behaviour like this...

~~~
redwall_hp
Is there even a legal term for this sort of captive market scenario? Antitrust
laws seem close in spirit, but people decades ago apparently couldn't have
anticipated the sort of vendor lock-in that has become commonplace in the
smartphone space.

It's like you had two paper mills that dominated the market, and they wanted
to claim a percentage of every novel, newspaper, etc. printed on the paper
they produced. Oh, and you can't use that paper you bought to write erotica or
other things the company disapproves of.

~~~
Spooky23
The only unique thing is the scale. There’s nothing that Apple is doing that
your grocery store, Ticketmaster venue, or mall owner isn’t.

Seems like a weird hill to die on for an email app to me. The market is
saturated.

~~~
andy_ppp
Because ripping people off by rent seeking is common it’s okay? It’s not okay
to steal other people’s work when them building things for it means you sell
more iPhones. Apple have this stuff completely backwards, stop there from
being an App Store at all and see how many iPhones are sold.

~~~
scarface74
All retailers “rent seek” by that definition.

~~~
andy_ppp
Sure, but you can only visit one retailer. If there was store competition let
Apple charge what they like...

~~~
scarface74
Google and Steam both have potential competitors and they both charge 30%

~~~
andy_ppp
They don’t charge on top of services the way Apple does do they?

~~~
scarface74
Yes Google has in app subscriptions.

~~~
andy_ppp
Do they force you to use their in app subscriptions in the way Apple is? Can I
still use my own subscriptions servcie - in fact I know the Answer because
Spotify and Hey were not complaining about the Google Play Store.

------
stephc_int13
The platform cut on app store is outrageous and has been for years.

This is nothing else than a tax.

And because both Apple and Google are adjusted on the same tax rate, this is
exactly like a monopoly.

I am sure their infrastructure costs are largely covered at this point.

Developers should unite and strongly ask for a progressive reduction, a few
percents each year.

~~~
coronadisaster
maybe developers should create their own store that would be web-based

~~~
harpratap
Possible on Android but not on iOS

------
alberth
Am I alone in thinking this isn’t Apple being as bad as others are making them
out to be?

I’ll explain ...

Apple deeply cares about two things, (1) user experience and (2) user privacy.

Today, Hey iOS when downloaded IS NOT FUNCTIONAL if you didn’t know to already
sign up for the service on their website. That’s a horrible experience and no
one likes it. Especially Apple.

On Trust/Privacy, Apple is safe guarding users CardOnFile data with all of
their advanced security features that they have worked directly with the major
card networks that no small developers (or even frankly medium or large
developer) could compete with. This benefits the consumer by reducing fraud,
and not having your credit card data sitting in some developers data
unencrypted. Apple also helps auto update cardonfile data when the card
expires so that the developers don’t lose revenue just because of expired
cards.

As for the 30% fee, why shouldn’t they get a cut? If the App Store was a
physical brick and mortar store Like BestBuy, I guarantee you then BestBuy
wants to make margin on products they allow in their store. (A) it’s a
distribution channel to a consumer you as a developer don’t have, (B) there’s
hard costs to putting your product in the App Store “shelf” and (C) Apple is
providing all of the easy and secure payment processing on behalf of thr
developer.

 _Note: I’m not trying to be combative. I’m just playing devils advocate and
pointing out this topic is way more complex than others are making it out to
be._

~~~
smnrchrds
> _Today, Hey iOS when downloaded IS NOT FUNCTIONAL if you didn’t know to
> already sign up for the service on their website._

The only reason for this is that Apple explicitly disallows apps from linking
to or even mentioning subscription options that do not go through Apple's
payment ecosystem and pay Apple's tax. Blaming the ensuing bad user experience
on app developers is a case of "why are you hitting yourself?"

> _As for the 30% fee, why shouldn’t they get a cut?_

That 30% is, ultimately, coming from our pockets. Apple wants it because it
prefers our money in their pockets. We, as the consumers, should fight back
and demand it be lowered because we prefer our money in our own pockets. I
don't understand why I should advocate that Apple should make apps more
expensive and should take more of my money.

~~~
alberth
But don’t they do this because they can Protect the consumers card data better
than anyone.

Everyone loves Apple for their unwavering stance in user Privacy. How is this
not just another example of that?

(I’m not trying to be combative. I’m just playing devils advocate and pointing
out this topic is way more complex than others are making it out to be)

~~~
smnrchrds
> _But don’t they do this because they can Protect the consumers card data
> better than anyone._

Compared to what? If there is a fraudulent charge on your credit card, issue a
chargeback. If I had two options: 1) Once every couple of years I may get a
credit card's details stolen and I have to spend perhaps an hour on the phone
with the bank to get thing sorted out, 2) the credit card issuer gives me a
card with some futuristic technology that makes fraud literally impossible; so
I don't have to spend that one hour every couple of years sorting out a
fraudulent transaction; however, the credit card adds a 30% surcharge to every
transaction—I would choose option 1, no questions. Wouldn't you?

~~~
veilrap
It seems like a lot of consumers would, and do choose 2) by choosing to buy
into Apple's ecosystem.

~~~
smnrchrds
Most consumers have no idea they are paying this 30%. I wish there was a law
forcing the amount of Apple tax to be disclosed on a separate line in any
purchase price and receipt, like it is the case with sales taxes. If people
know, many would be outraged that the company they have paid over $1000 for a
device is also nickel-and-diming them for using the device.

~~~
scarface74
Should we also force every other retailer to display their wholesale cost?

------
bonestormii_
I think the problem is the way they lock in their users by holding their
personal data hostage in heir ecosystem. Your music in itunes. Your already-
paid apps in the appstore that won't transfer to android. Your ridiculously
expensive phone. Your ridiculously expensive headphones that inexplicably
won't work on android phone. They own their users. And then they own the
store. So then, they own the app developers. It's bullshit. You don't get to
own everyone all the time in all those market places just because you sit on a
mountain of money. Screw apple.

~~~
lotsofpulp
>They own their users.

In my experience, Windows owned me. I spent far more time (and money) dealing
with malware and low quality hardware running windows than I ever have with
the Apple devices I have used. The amortized cost of an Apple device is far
lower than equivalent Windows (or Androids), if you include time and stress
and probably money too since my family uses iPhones and iPads and MacBook Airs
for 5+ years.

~~~
bonestormii_
My jaw is on the floor. How did you get so much malware and such poor
hardware?

I love my iphone 7 and my macbook air from 2013--no doubt, they are very good.
But I could throw my windows pc in the garbage and rebuy it a couple of times
over for the cost of comparable hardware from apple, and I'm just not having
the problems you are describing. This is like 6 year old computer that was
about $1,300 in parts. It's like, just some asus motherboard with mismatched
ram and a video card.... and it works fine. My mom has a 10 year old windows
computer that just keeps on spreadsheeting and e-mailing for her... just fine.
I just don't understand.

I've also had apple hardware that has issues. The notion that it is issue free
is just not true.

~~~
Mandatum
I feel like these people just need to remove local admin from their parents'
accounts, setup automatic updates (no countdown warning) on Windows LTSC and
have Malwarebytes Premium installed. Check in once a quarter.

Or get them a Chromebook and teach them the basics of Sheets and Docs. Check
in when the laptop dies, shit you could have a backup one to swap out to and
still spend probably 50% of what you would on the Windows PC, 20% on the
Macbook.

~~~
lotsofpulp
> Or get them a Chromebook and teach them the basics of Sheets and Docs. Check
> in when the laptop dies, shit you could have a backup one to swap out to and
> still spend probably 50% of what you would on the Windows PC, 20% on the
> Macbook.

And then how do they FaceTime people from a Chromebook? With one of the 20
video chat apps that Google releases every year? I’m not interested in
teaching them what’s new and what’s not. I have 80 year olds who don’t know
English setup on FaceTime since iPad minis came out 7 years ago or whatever,
and they know the ins and out of iOS. They’ve never had to be taught about a
new app.

I originally did try Android tablets, and google couldn’t get their shit
together with Hangouts video or Google video chat or whatever other ones, and
I wasn’t going to waste my time being their Beta tester.

I also have better alternatives than figuring out what Windows LTSC is, where
to buy it, and installing software. I can just get a MacBook Air for just as
cheap, and tell my relatives to go to the Apple store when they have a
problem. I installed a content blocker, and don’t even have to check in every
quarter.

------
dreamcompiler
Could YC (and the VC community in general) put pressure on Apple to fix this
nonsense? Like encouraging startups to create Android-only apps?

~~~
anoncareer0212
The bill for this has been coming since Apple figured out they could upsell
everyone to backup their iPhones and add a new line to their revenue statement
for Wall Street - back then we talked a lot about Apple becoming a _services_
company like Google, having values like shipping iteratively with scheduled
stable releases with feature flags to enable/disable landmines in the field.

Today, "services" means Apple has a button at the top of the Settings
app...for Apple TV Plus, meanwhile macOS is so neglected you cant drag files
into folders anymore and iOS has had historically unstable releases 2 of the
last 3 years.

All that to say, it takes a while for chickens to come home to roost, and we
_just_ started taking steps in that direction. Direct action like this is
unlikely, but its the beginning of 1000 people making 1000000 small decisions
that will amplify accountability.

~~~
threeseed
Most of this is simply not true.

1) There is no AppleTV+ button on the Settings app.

2) You can absolutely drag files into folders on OSX. I do it everyday.

3) iOS is just as stable as it has ever been. Curious when this utopia of
incredibly stable releases was.

4) Services for Apple actually means App Store, Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple
News+ etc. You know some tens of billions a year.

~~~
anoncareer0212
1) screenshots from two separate users
[https://twitter.com/DamienPetrilli/status/126522381024201933...](https://twitter.com/DamienPetrilli/status/1265223810242019330?s=20)

2) Not after upgrading to Catalina
[https://discussions.apple.com/thread/250712266](https://discussions.apple.com/thread/250712266)

3) That's not what their head of software though when they used iOS 12 to
catch up on debt from a bad iOS 11 [1], and iOS 13 was panned as the buggiest
release of all by The Verge. [2] Apple released updates every week or two for
_3 months straight_ to try and patch it up. [3]

Your tone indicates you don't actually want an answer to this, but, iOS 2-6
went well, iOS 8/9/10 good/very good/good.

4) Mindless cheerleading of dollars has led to the crossroads Apple is at.

[1] [https://9to5mac.com/2018/01/30/ios-12-apple-features-
perform...](https://9to5mac.com/2018/01/30/ios-12-apple-features-performance-
reliability/)

[2] [https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/19/20872972/apple-
ios-13-rev...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/19/20872972/apple-
ios-13-review-iphone-update-dark-mode-arcade-maps-photos-siri)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_13](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_13)

~~~
zimpenfish
> 2) Not after upgrading to Catalina
> [https://discussions.apple.com/thread/250712266](https://discussions.apple.com/thread/250712266)

I've been on Catalina since the first developer pre-release and dragging files
onto folders has always worked.

------
localhost3000
Versions of this have happened to me multiple times over the years. They never
budge. The developer always gets screwed. I will never build on the App Store
again.

------
dontblink
There should be an App Store union that boycotts Apple's policies to help to
the App developers shift some of the balance of power.

~~~
spiderfarmer
I think there should be a functioning government that makes sure we all have a
healthy economy where monopolies and duopolies are kept in check.

------
rising-sky
> One way that Hey could have gone, Schiller says, is to offer a free or paid
> version of the app with basic email reading features on the App Store then
> separately offered an upgraded email service that worked with the Hey app on
> iOS on its own website. Schiller gives one more example: an RSS app that
> reads any feed, but also reads an upgraded feed that could be charged for on
> a separate site. In both cases, the apps would have functionality when
> downloaded on the store.

Comments by Apple executive, Phil Schiller[1].

Is this not an agreeable solution?

It's a separate debate that Apple may be charging exorbitant fees for App
Store distribution when there is no competition and one that needs to be
addressed, but I think this is a decent workaround, Apple is saying you can
put stuff on the App Store and if it has a free version with functionality
then we don't charge you for it. Otherwise, we do.

[1] [https://9to5mac.com/2020/06/18/schiller-hey-app-store-
policy...](https://9to5mac.com/2020/06/18/schiller-hey-app-store-policy/)

~~~
protomyth
_Is this not an agreeable solution?_

No, it's not. Let's ignore Apple's behavior on other platforms, and look at a
whole class of apps this excludes. If I have an app for a college that
requires a student to have paid tuition before using then I am in the same
boat as Hey if I don't have some way to allow them to pay tuition over the
app. That's just nuts. Apps that enhance services that are already being
delivered by other means should be allowed without Apple trying to get a cut.
Frankly, the only reason these apps are even going through the App Store
because direct downloads are disallowed. Apple's workaround doesn't benefit
anyone but Apple.

~~~
etchalon
I would argue it benefits the customer, who can now download an app and use it
for free.

~~~
protomyth
But they aren't getting an actual experience. They are getting some crapfest
the company has put together to satisfy some idea Apple had about how they
should run their business. The app is a distraction and won't really be
anything more than that since the company's priority is the actual paid
service. It lessens the platform and creates a bunch of advertising-ware as
opposed to function apps.

------
paragraft
One aspect that bugs me about the situation that I've not seen mentioned is
this disingenuous language Apple employs repeatedly in justifying its right to
a percentage take on the basis of the services it's providing in distribution
etc. Eg they even describe how Basecamp's been providing apps for free for
years on their platform in the email to DHH, with overtones of Basecamp being
freeloaders, and they've only been getting by by Apple's forebearance.

Yet that argument completely underplays that it's a two-way street - Apple
gets enormous value from the aggregate weight of the collective of developers
who make native apps for iOS, adding collective value to iOS products. But you
never see Apple concede this. I'd even posit that even if all the apps on the
App Store were free (at least free from an Apple tax), it would still be
worthwhile for Apple to run it, in terms of sustaining the value of the
ecosystem for iPhone buyers.

------
nico_h
I think the other thing that sticks out is the prohibition for developer to
charge different price in and out of the app store (seems to be somewhat
relaxed, for example expressVPN, or maybe the trick is to not offer the exact
same bundle?) and the related prohibition to mention the price difference when
subscribing outside the app store.

If apple was so confident in the value of the app store they would let the
consumer make the choice instead of preventing even a hint of competition.

e.g.:

Tap here to subscribe right now for $X (monitor your subscription in the app
store app).

Subscribe on our site for $(.7*X) by entering your credit card information.

Then let apple adjust the numbers until they have the same amount of signups
as before, that would let the customer decide on the value of the "Apple
Convenience Tax" instead of preventing information disclosure.

------
stephc_int13
Related:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-18/microsoft...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-18/microsoft-
says-antitrust-regulators-need-to-review-app-stores)

------
PeterStuer
Fairly telling that these corporations that are themselves tax dodging any way
they can and then some on a global scale are so draconian against people
trying to dodge _their_ taxe regime.

------
WA
I have a consumer app that tried to go they Hey route (no signup, no reference
to website, no IAPs), but was rejected immediately (2017), despite many other
apps that do exactly that. I had to implement IAPs to have it approved.

------
Tehdasi
Hmm I wonder if the SomethingAwful reader app is liable to be hit by this.
Since it requires a login which you do have to pay for, but the app is
actually done by a 3rd paty.

------
pedrorijo91
maybe it's time for ios developers to (temporary) remove their apps from the
App Store as a protest?

Taking 30% without providing alternatives to install apps seems totally unfair

------
risyachka
I personally don't have a problem with 30% (sure I with it was more like 15%
:) - this is their store, they are not forcing you to buy a phone or laptop.
If you do then you agree to the rules.

My main problem is that they apply their rules to everyone in a different way,
just like Google.

And they don't even hide it and have written in their TOS that if your app is
deleted for a violation, and another app is not it is ok and they decide if to
enforce tos or not.

If they remove my app for violation - no problem. I can even do their job and
send them links to apps that have the same violation, so they can remove them
too. Nope, only my app.

~~~
stephc_int13
Most retailers have margins in the range of 0.5% to 4.5%

30% is clearly not a reasonable margin...

~~~
doctor_eval
I think placement in the App Store should be considered not in terms of credit
card fees but more like placement on the shelves of a supermarket.

I don’t know the economics of supermarkets but I do know it’s not just cost+.
Sellers have to buy display space, participate in promotions, etc etc - all on
top of the cost of the actual goods.

I’m too lazy to look it up but I wouldn’t be surprised if the gross margin in
the App Store is in the same region as for non essential supermarket goods.

~~~
sebastien_b
Given the state of the App Store, that placement is the equivalent of a needle
on that grocery shelf.

So now on top of the 30% you give Apple, you also have to buy ads in that same
store for it to be more visible to users (assuming a competitor hasn’t outbid
you).

And that 30% you’re already paying? It doesn’t replace your marketing
requirements one bit, so that “placement” by Apple doesn’t justify that fee.

~~~
doctor_eval
No I think you misunderstand. I’m not saying the 30% is Ok, nothing like that.
I’m just saying that if you want to understand why it’s 30%, perhaps looking
at other storefronts is better than just comparing it to the raw card fees.

A quick google suggests I’m right [0] - Coles is a large Australian
supermarket chain that makes gross profit of 24.4%, which after card and
infrastructure is probably about Apple’s GP on the App Store.

So sure, 30% is a lot, and I personally think it should be less, but it seems
very much in line with other storefronts.

[0]
[https://www.gurufocus.com/term/grossmargin/GREY:CLEGF/Gross-...](https://www.gurufocus.com/term/grossmargin/GREY:CLEGF/Gross-
Margin-Percentage/Coles%20Group)

~~~
sebastien_b
My point is that, regardless of their cut, the "exposure" the App Store
supposedly brings is likely practically nil, unless you're lucky enough to get
'featured' by them. So it's not like you end up being able to save costs by
getting rid of your marketing department because "hey, you're on the App
Store!".

Additionally, you're not allowed to sell the same software at a different,
higher, cost to make up for Apple's cut, so you effectively and up losing even
more revenue, since you need to keep your own existing marketings costs, maybe
even have to pay into Apple's ads on top of your 30% to market there as well
for actual exposure, since you essentially end up as a needle in a haystack,
because the App Store is full of cheap crappy apps that Apple is pushing
developers to create to fill up their store, because "courage". (edit: I read
from other comments that differing costs seem to be allowed now - "Hallelujah,
it's a fucking miracle!")

Additionally you don't have any option of providing the download yourself-they
force you to use their "service", and hence "pay" for said service, instead of
being able to control that cost yourself. Because "courage".

And besides, I don't see how comparing fee structures between completely
different industries as justification for Apple's cut is a valid argument in
this case ("they do it too" or "they're even more" means the other guys are
just as bad or worse - it's shouldn't be a pissing match of "who's worse?").

~~~
doctor_eval
I keep saying this, I’m not trying to validate it, I’m trying to understand
it. And anyway, almost all of your points also apply to supermarkets. You
think app stores and supermarkets are somehow different kinds of markets but
they are not. Economically, apps and food are both commodities, and App Store
and supermarkets exist to concentrate the audience in order to generate
profit, not for their suppliers.

Australian supermarkets are renowned for screwing their suppliers, for
example. It’s probably no coincidence that their gross margins are similar
too.

Maybe you can come up with another established market that deals in huge
volumes of undifferentiated goods in a single market? Large DIY stores come to
mind. Apart from scale, why do you think the economics of the App Store are
appreciably different from these other marketplaces?

Anyway - I seem to be jettisoning all of my karma trying to explain how we can
frame the problem in order to understand it, because understanding something
is the only way to change it. But nobody seems to understand my points let
along agree with them, so I’ll stop now.

------
hejja
imo this is less clear-cut than people are making it out to be.

I'm not saying I'm with Apple. In fact I hate platform fees.

But if I have a game and say, "my game is subscription based" to circumvent
in-app purchases, how is that different?

In other words, where do you draw the line

------
etchalon
I never really get the argument that Apple is somehow some horrible villain
here.

If you own a store, you sell products at a markup. That's how it works. You
buy a widget for 0.50 and you sell it for 1.00.

You could say "That retailer is stealing 0.50 from the producer!" but no one
says that.

~~~
ryanisnan
The difference is if you are a store, your customers can easily walk next door
and buy something else. You cannot do that on iOS. Your analogy is flawed.
Edit: not to mention, in your analogy, Apple is the mall.

~~~
etchalon
How is Apple the mall? They're a store which sells a singular type of product
(Applications), with a singular user experience under a singular brand.

We used to actually buy software in stores. Developers used to have give
CompUSA, and Best Buy, etc. massive cuts just to be on their shelves.

~~~
fbelzile
Exactly. We had a choice to go buy it from CompUSA -OR- Best Buy -OR- from the
developer themselves. There is no choice with iOS.

~~~
etchalon
There's also no choice with Best Buy. If you walk into a Best Buy, you pay
Best Buy prices.

If you don't want to pay iOS prices, you go to Android. If you don't want to
go to Android, you can go try and find a Firefox OS phone, or a Ubuntu one.

The problem isn't that choice doesn't exist. The problem is that equivalent
choices don't exist.

~~~
bduerst
Bestbuy doesn't charge you hundreds of dollars to buy the store before you
walk in.

Consumers don't own Bestbuy, Bestbuy owns Bestbuy, so it's okay for Bestbuy to
control the shelf space in their own stores.

It is not okay for Bestbuy to exclusively own the app shelfspace on your own
phone. Just as it is not okay for Bestbuy to exclusively charge a premium to
it's competition when you, the user, are signing up for services with the
competition on your own phone.

~~~
etchalon
Costco charges you a membership before you can shop there, and behold, they
sell things at a markup.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Does Costco sell things at a markup? They are famous for having net income
equal to the amount of membership fees they collect, so they must be selling
products at however much it costs to obtain the products and operate the
stores.

[https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/02/13/how-costco-
actuall...](https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/02/13/how-costco-actually-
makes-money.aspx)

------
paulajohnson
Yet another reason why not to be a sharecropper.

------
fxtentacle
"Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30%
cut"

and then this.

I believe DHH is correct that this is anticompetitive behavior and should be
punished the legal way.

------
_ph_
The discussions about "Hey" show, the question of the App Store is a complex
problem. And I think it is a complex problem, because Apple made the rules far
too simple to work, as reality is complex. And because of actions driven by
putting the revenue over customer service. Customer in this context means both
the customers using the app store and the developers selling on the app store.

The App Store rules cover many aspects, which should not be mixed in my eyes.

First: security. Reviewing apps for security is a great feature. Having a
place to get reviewed apps is gread for the end customer. But many rules, like
the ones about in-app purchases, have little or nothing to do with security.

About curation: yes, it is a great feature, if an App Store is curated and the
quality of apps is ensured. And yes, offering in-app purchases is great for
the customer, as it is safe and anonymous. Yet, Apple does little to curate
all the freemium games, which are pretty trivial apps which allow you to spend
enourmeous amounts of money on a game. Spending in excess of $100 for a silly
simple game should be considered as profiteering if not outright fraudulent.
But this seems to be ok in the App Store as long as you pay your 30%...

Besides that Apple obviously often does a bad job when curating the App Store,
there are many examples, like "Hey", that show, that the overly simplistic App
Store rules far too often just don't fit all business models. Therefore, there
should be more differentiation in the level of services offered by Apple to
the developers and the developers be able to choose the service model with its
associated costs, which fits them best.

I think Hey profits a lot from being in the App Store, even from offering in-
App purchases, as this is very customer-friendly, both from a convenience and
security point. And of course, Apple is entitled to get a share of the profit
Hey makes from being on the App store. But currently Apple doesn't charge on
the profit, but on the gross revenue, which is difficult for a lot companies.
And this in a world, where to do business basically means, that you have to
offer an app.

As an example, but it is not as far fetched as it may sound, consider Tesla.
Tesla is a company, which sells their product via the web. They also offer an
App, which is basically required to use their product - for example arranging
service appointments is done via apps. Also for operating the car, the app is
extremely useful. Should Apple now require Tesla to offer in-app purchases to
the customers? Yes, it would be extremely convenient to be able to buy your
car in the app, as it is done on the web otherwise. But obviously, Tesla
couldn't afford the 30% share of the car price. Does this give Apple the right
to ban the Tesla app from the App Store with all consequences? If you think
about it, this case isn't so much more far-fetched than the case of Hey.

------
seek3r00
_Preface_

I think that you should always talk about average users. There is no point in
talking about technical users that make up a small slice of the market pie.

I’m an Apple customer. I’ve an iPhone but I’m still horrified from needing to
buy a developer account (which is like 99$) to install (my) apps on my iPhone
(only). It would be probably possible for Apple to enable checks for personal
apps, executing apps that are signed with the same iCloud account or something
like that (doing all the checks on the device, no servers involved).

Never mind that macOS is a hot mess for (some) developers, right now. So,
yeah, I have some issues with Apple too.

 _On compensation_

I see a certain similarity between Hey, Spotify, Restocks. They all are (paid)
apps trying to take advantage of Apple user base, without compensating Apple
for it.

Meanwhile, Apple is expected to keep paying for the App Store servers, its
curation team and its app approval team.

Obviously smartphones are getting better hence (average) users will buy a new
phone less often and Apple is expected to keep supporting old devices for 5/6
years and it has to pay the engineers who work on the OSes and the APIs, and
the non-engineers that keep the show running.

You could argue that Android and Google are better.

But Android is not Google’s main business, _ads_ are. Google has built (mostly
free) services that generate data about its users, which is then used a bait
for advertisers.

No one cares if you’re using F-droid instead of the Play Store, Google is
still getting its checks from you and your org using Gmail, Analytics,
AdSense, YouTube, etc...

 _On side loading_

Side loading apps (for the average user) is risky and it’s mostly done for
three reasons IMO:

\- cracking apps \- accessing apps that are not allowed on the Play Store \-
escape Google

I don’t really have much to say about side loading. I’m too biased against it,
so maybe someone else could convince me that it’s a good thing.

 _Conclusion_

What would happen if Apple allowed apps to use external payment options (like
Stripe)?

Well, the obvious, no one would use IAP because there would be much cheaper
services that are not compensating Apple.

Apple is far from perfect:

\- the App Store approval process is a mess \- the communication process is
broken (removing old message exchanges, come on...) \- they really don’t seem
to care about indie developers

However, although Apple needs developers to keep running the show, without no
Apple there is no iOS, no App Store. It’s a tricky problem to solve.

~~~
fossuser
I'm not persuaded it's that tricky.

Apple makes money from selling hardware devices at a markup, that's their core
business and the reason people like them.

They're also laying the groundwork for the next computing platform:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5J_6oMMG7Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5J_6oMMG7Y)

They could force IAP on iOS because it's better for users (track subscription,
cancel) - without forcing profit sharing/rent seeking.

They could charge some reasonable fee for initially distributing the app or
for a dev account (which they already do).

Taking a cut of all profits on the platform whether you compete directly
(spotify vs. apple music) or not, is greedy. It's also lazy, you're taking
money without providing equivalent value.

I'd argue companies that focus on doing this kind of thing end up fat, lazy,
and hated. (Steve Ballmer's Microsoft).

~~~
fossuser
I’m also not the only one that would make this argument:
[https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/127437024304610508...](https://twitter.com/timsweeneyepic/status/1274370243046105089?s=21)

------
realtalk_sp
They would have to start by not demoting submissions with comment threads that
explore this issue. This submission from 6 hours ago with 124 upvotes and 212
comments
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23568095](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23568095))
is not showing up in the first 120 items on Hacker News and I have no idea
why. I've posted in a few places asking @dang to explain and I'm just getting
downvoted. Extremely troubling.

EDIT: I just got up to submission 270 and still don't see it. That submission
has almost certainly been hidden somehow to prevent further discovery.

EDIT 2: I highly suspect Apple is somehow putting pressure on HN to do this.
The way these submissions are being 'controlled' is really disturbing. And it
would make perfect sense for Apple to try and control discussion on HN. We
basically destroyed TripleByte in just the past month. Anything scandalous
affecting developers can turn into a company-melting shitstorm via HN.

~~~
LegitShady
This site is heavily moderated (read: manipulated) by its owners/mods, and I
expect censorship for anything that might threaten their business
relationships or cause controversy they don't want.

It's more restrictive than reddit today, let alone reddit when it blew up. I'm
not sure to what extent the narratives here are organic or not.

~~~
rising-sky
I'm sorry but I don't think it is helpful to make claims like this without
_presenting_ evidence, otherwise it's just an assumption, which is fodder for
unfounded conspiracy theories, which again is not really constructive. It
reminds me of a saying: "people criticize what they don't understand"

~~~
LegitShady
I understand it, I just dont think there's a purpose in arguing control of a
platform they own. This site is heavily manipulated, the moderation is heavy,
and censorship (things disappearing) make it hard to present evidence, just
like the post in question 'disappeared' until it suddenly appeared.

It only changes how you should perceive the site, it doesn't change anything
else. Understand that anything controversial or not in YC's interest will
disappear and won't be available for 'evidence'.

This is a great place to talk about computer stuff, but I don't believe any
narratives here are organic by default.

~~~
ohyeshedid
You could try setting 'showdead' to yes, then you can see content that's been
downvoted, flagged, dead, and/or bans.

The vast majority of moderation on HN is from users, not the mods.

~~~
LegitShady
any censorship systems in place to protect the company could easily circumvent
that setting. I understand that there is user moderation, but I also
understand that doesn't mean anything about top down censorship.

------
durpkingOP
boohoo

------
tjholowaychuk
I installed Hey to check it out and it’s useless from the app itself, it’s not
too surprising they don’t want bad UX.

~~~
ceejayoz
It’s an app for users of the service. The Netflix app is useless without a
subscription, too.

~~~
greiskul
It's like if an university released an app for it's student body, they were
forced to allow anybody to sign up to the university with Apple pay. And give
Apple 30% of the tuition.

~~~
etchalon
Except Apple specifically exempts real world services, because they agree.
That'd be insane.

~~~
camgunz
How is email not a real world service. What even is a non-real world service?

~~~
etchalon
Digital goods are not real world services. Labor, food, physical products,
etc. are considered "real world services" according to Apple's language.

~~~
camgunz
I’ll buy that (ironically) when they make iCloud free.

~~~
etchalon
… that does not follow. Apple's definitions aren't based on whether a good is
free. It's based on whether the service is delivered without real-world
interaction by the user.

Tuition at a brick-and-mortar college? No cut.

On-demand video service with tutorials? They get a cut.

~~~
camgunz
I’m zeroing in on the “real” here. Email is an indispensable service, just
like paying tuition. The idea that “it’s on the internet so it doesn’t count”
is... farcical coming from the biggest tech company (or one of the largest
browser vendors, whichever seems more relevant) ever.

------
chuinard
I'm ready for the downvotes but I don't think the App Store cut is crazy. They
do reduce to 15% if you have long-running subscriptions with your user. Credit
cards charge 3% to start. Apple handles distribution, updates, etc. Taking 15%
at the end of the day isn't terrible. And hey, they made the super shiny
beloved iOS platform too in the first place, not to mention the SDK that makes
the apps even possible to build!

DHH is just trying to ride cancel culture to get enough people to tweet /
complain towards Apple in hopes that they cave.

------
ryandrake
Unpopular opinion, but if you want to make a game for the PS4, you need to
play by Sony's rules or find another platform. Or if you want to write an app
that runs on Toyota's head units, you need to play by Toyota's rules, no
matter how frustrating they are. Same goes for building an iOS app. You're
writing something for an appliance, not for a general purpose computer. I used
to be an iOS developer, and that was kind of the faustian bargain we all made:
Play by their (sometimes objectionable, sometimes unevenly enforced) rules or
GTFO.

~~~
43920
1) iOS devices are effectively general-purpose computers at this point (and
the only computing devices owned by a significant number of people).

2) Why shouldn't I be able to write an app for my game console?

~~~
ryandrake
iOS devices are empirically _not_ general purpose computers, since their
manufacturer deliberately specifies applications’ allowed and disallowed
purposes.

> shouldn’t

I’m simply describing how things are and not making judgments about how they
should be. Apple treats iPhones as appliances that have allowed and disallowed
purposes, and rules of the road for app distribution. Every iOS developer who
makes a living on the platform knows this is the deal. Going on your blog and
acting all surprised that this is the case shows that you either don’t have
much experience working with the platform or didn’t do your due diligence
before getting into the business.

~~~
43920
I guess I'm using a different definition of "general purpose computer" \- IMO,
it's defined not so much by the device design, but rather what people do with
it. It's possible to do almost everything you can do with a normal computer on
an iOS device, and for many people, it's their primary or only computing
device, which I think makes it sufficiently "general purpose".

(There's also the other definition of "general purpose", which is that you can
install your own OS on it and have full control over what software you run. I
think Apple should allow that too, but that's sort of a different issue).

------
ancorevard
As a consumer, I hope nothing changes with the App Store. It may be tough for
some app developers, but it sure is a haven for consumers.

~~~
belltaco
Yeah I sure love a lot of my money going to middlemen instead of people
actually making the things I am buying.

~~~
threeseed
You sure Apple has no role in making the things you are buying. They do design
and build the phones, SDKs, Developer Tools etc that makes these apps even any
good.

I used to build apps for Blackberry and Palm devices and I can assure you that
their contribution should not be understated.

~~~
camgunz
Isn’t the whole idea “add value to iOS”? What am I missing?

