
My story with App Review - egocentric
https://twitter.com/keleftheriou/status/1274356729224892416
======
TedDoesntTalk
My app has been repeatedly rejected because I do not offer free in-app trials
(but offer money-back guarantee on my website) and also do not offer in-apps
purchases.

I asked if I offered in-app purchases, would the app be approved?

No, since I offer 3-day money-back guarantee on website-based purchses, I must
ALSO offer a free trial in the app.

But I don’t want to offer free trials. I’m ok offering a 3-day money-back
guarantee, but Apple says that’s not an option for apps.

They insist that I (1) change my business model from 3-day money back
guarantee to free trial and (2) purchase a shit ton more infrastructure to
handle the audience that free trials attract (I’ve tried free trial business
model and it created a lot of use but no more revenue than 3-day money back
guarantee). The money-back guarantee seems to weed out a lot of free loaders,
at least in this domain — not necessarily others.

~~~
threeseed
You say that Apple is demanding you change your business model but actually
you're demanding that Apple accomodate yours.

If someone buys your app and doesn't like it then how do they know about the
money back guarantee ? Because depending on how visibly you communicate that
to the user at best you could make it hard for users to know about it and at
worst you could be flat out being deceptive.

Either way Apple takes on the significant chargeback risk for your app which
is far more concerning for them than whatever revenue they get.

~~~
jedberg
> Either way Apple takes on the significant chargeback risk for your app which
> is far more concerning for them than whatever revenue they get.

Gee, if only there was a way for the person to signup directly on the app
maker's site, where they would assume all the risk...

~~~
threeseed
You are still placing all of the reputation risk on Apple though.

If this guy builds an app which is forcing users into paying upfront and then
hiding a money back guarantee in some hidden text then that is deceptive. And
Apple suffers since they allowed the app to be sold on their store.

~~~
43920
> And Apple suffers since they allowed the app to be sold on their store.

Well, they could allow the app to be sold outside their store, and then they
wouldn't face any reputational risk from it.

I don't really see how this is deceptive either - if the app clearly states
that you're paying for it upfront, and what the price is, then how are you
being deceived? If you aren't willing to pay for it without trying it, then
you can just not use it.

~~~
TedDoesntTalk
> Well, they could allow the app to be sold outside their store, and then they
> wouldn't face any reputational risk from it.

The service is sold outside the store (website). The apps to use the service
are free on all platforms.

------
jedberg
It seems like a simple law could fix this:

Phone device makers that provide an application store must also allow the user
to load non-approved applications with equivalent API access to approved
applications, and must make it possible for the user to load a third-party
application store with equivalent access to the first-party application store.

~~~
anchpop
I would like this to be extended to game consoles and any other kind of
personal computing device, too! Although phones are clearly the most egregious
example, game console manufacturers create a weird two-party market where they
subsidize the purchase of the console so they can rent-seek off the larger
playerbase by taking a cut of game sales.

~~~
threeseed
That would completely destroy the gaming console market.

Nintendo would largely be fine. Sony and Microsoft however would be forced
into anti-consumer practices like putting advertising everywhere and selling
your data. Not to mention a complete consolidation of the studios where most
games would be made by Sony Studios and only sold on the Sony app store.

~~~
WrtCdEvrydy
> like putting advertising everywhere and selling your data

Ever used Xbox Live on the Xbox you paid for and seen ads? We're already
there.

~~~
threeseed
Well it would go to a whole new level if you want to take away their only
revenue source.

Microsoft may even just decide not to build consoles at all.

~~~
wayneftw
Sounds good to me. Let somebody who wants to play ball fairly build the
consoles.

------
greatgib
It's a very nice example of Stockholm syndrome: "They are the nice big brother
inflicting pain to devs and users and restricting their rights, and it's
probably my fault if they are not nice with me"

~~~
smnrchrds
I think despite gathering his courage to speak out, he is still afraid of
Apple's reprisal, so he doesn't want to speak too harshly of Apple, lest Apple
decides his apps are in violation and his account must be banned.

------
SV_BubbleTime
> But getting it on the store has been one of the most difficult, non-
> technical obstacles I've had to overcome, and this was only one of _many_
> other hoops I've had to go through.

We were very careful in our app to not push the boundaries at all. Nothing
even remotely outside the norm for this very reason.

Now... contrast this “code chilling effect” with how great innovations have
happened. Apple is clearly preventing any App company from ever having the
same opportunity that Apple themselves had.

Bad moves I think.

------
londons_explore
I assume the policy is based on the fact someone at Apple has decided that
keyboards on the Apple Watch can never be designed to have a satisfactory user
experience, therefore all watch keyboards are banned.

However OP's app is grandfathered in, but when he tries to make other similar
apps, they aren't allowed.

~~~
bredren
Apple felt this way about web pages on Apple Watch also. But I believe they
have since relented.

------
rbecker
> Pushing for an answer on how one of my apps can have a watch keyboard, but
> the other cannot, they could only "discuss via phone".

What would Apple's response be if you started with "This call may be
recorded"? Is recording without notice legal in any state?

~~~
kmeisthax
Limiting the question specifically to "can you record your own phone calls for
your own use", and ignoring questions about what you can do with the
recordings (which is where things like CCPA or GDPR would apply), there are
two regimes which cover the vast majority of telecommunications law: one-party
consent and two-party consent. (India doesn't allow recording at all, but
that's because they're stuck in the Ma Bell era of telecom law.) One-party
consent means one party - i.e., yourself - needs to consent to recording for
the recording to be legal. The latter means all parties need to consent to
recording. (Evidently "two-party consent" was coined before conference calls
were a thing.)

About three quarters of the US is one-party consent but a quarter are two-
party consent. California is part of the latter group and if any party to the
call has California residence, then you need consent from all parties to the
call before you can record. Yes, this has gone up to California supreme court.
Yes, this includes all of the FAANG companies. So you would need some kind of
notification that you were recording and for the person on the other line to
consent to the recording, regardless of where you live, simply because Apple
employees live in California.

(Depending on jurisdiction, there are exceptions for a party to a call to
record the call if it has something to do with specific crimes, but "violating
antitrust law" isn't one of them.)

~~~
ineedasername
I don't see the Federal Supreme Court weigh in on this, and without that I
don't see how California can impose it's laws on people out of state. It's no
different from any other law-- take open carry gun laws as an example. A state
that prohibited open carry would not be able to assign liability to someone
that open carried in a state where it was legal. It really doesn't matter what
the California Supreme court says, they don't have authority outside of
California. I suppose they could make laws about how such recording could be
used if they entered in California, but not much else.

~~~
cgriswald
The problem I see is if you’re recording the call for legal reasons, you’re
probably going to court in California where it wouldn’t be admissible even if
they wouldn’t be able to charge you.

~~~
ineedasername
I'm thinking more about this specific situation of getting a formal record of
what Apple tells developers. My suspicion is that if lots of people could
compare notes there'd be some inconsistency. Certainly they don't bully folks
like Netflix around because loads of people would suddenly become interested
in Android if apps like that disappeared. Also California law would be
irrelevant in a Federal class action suit.

------
caiobegotti
The more people speak up about these situations the faster they will be fixed
permanently to avoid a neverending flow of PR nightmares.

------
clort
I am not sure that this app is _for_ blind and visually impaired users, or for
everybody but also useful enough that blind and visually impaired can use it
(which would be pretty darned useful, for a keyboard)

If it were explicitly an assistance app, would Apple be in violation of any
discrimination laws by refusing to have it in the app store in that way?

------
ezoe
The moral is, don't relies on Platform vendor's official distribution system
as a sole way to distribute your software. If that platform doesn't allow you
to distribute the software outside of it, don't bother to support such a
platform. You have been lost already. Don't waste your time on dealing with
such hideous non-free platform.

~~~
close04
I understand the sentiment but there's a reason developers still flock o
develop for Apple and Google even under these conditions. Despite the
restrictive nature of the app stores they're the only chance most small
developers have of ever reaching a wide enough _paying_ audience.

Many apps are pretty much just a feature bolted onto the OS and could easily
be shipped by Apple or Google as an integral part of the OS thus taking the
whole reason foe that app's existence. So for many devs the whole income
stream depends on Apple or Google far more than just by using their app store.

~~~
AndrewDucker
I'm not sure why you included Google there, as you can install on Android
without going through their store. You just have to confirm that you're really
sure you want to.

~~~
close04
I was pretty clear why I included Google. Because using their app store is the
single best chance for a dev to monetize their app on Android, or at least to
get it noticed. Sure, they can use another store like F-Droid but while the
possibility is there, they'd _severely_ limit the audience. And most people
are discouraged (for good reasons) from installing APKs from random places on
the internet.

Few Android apps are distributed exclusively outside of the Play Store and
even fewer get any traction with users, not to speak of being a financial
success for the dev.

------
agelefthe
Well said

------
AbraKdabra
These kind of tweets kinda defeats the true purpose of Twitter, why don't the
people write a blog instead of making dozens of tweets? I mean, you can write
a blog with exact o more words, you can express yourself more and make the
article much richer, and then you can link it to your twitter account, it
makes absolutely no sense to do what he did.

~~~
satvikpendem
Engagement. The majority of the people that such a blog would be shared with
won't read it because it requires clicking an extra link. Tweets can be read
in-line. Also, tweets in a tweet thread can be commented on specifically
rather than on the blog post entirely.

~~~
reaperducer
_Also, tweets in a tweet thread can be commented on specifically rather than
on the blog post entirely_

So it's like a college lecture where the professor stops after each sentence
and has to answer questions from the audience. Pretty much the opposite of
communication.

~~~
satvikpendem
Not really. The tweeter in this case isn't stopping between each tweet to
address comments. It is asynchronous versus the synchronous example you gave.

