
“You download the app and it doesn’t work, that’s not what we want on the store” - throwaway888abc
https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1273748071298392065
======
nodamage
There is a specific exemption for "Reader" apps like Netflix specified in the
App Store Review Guidelines:

 _3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased
content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books,
audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage,
and approved services such as classroom management apps), provided that you
agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing
method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other
purchasing methods are not designed to discourage use of in-app purchase._

[https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/#bus...](https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/#business)

While not everyone may agree with these rules, they are clearly explained in
the documentation. Releasing an app that does not follow these rules and then
publicly complaining when your app is inevitably rejected is starting to seem
more like a guerrilla marketing tactic than anything else here.

(Which is honestly pretty clever, I doubt yet-another-email-app would have
gotten nearly the same amount of press coverage that this has gotten.)

~~~
polityagent
Why is the fastmail app allowed?

~~~
nodamage
It might have been an oversight in the approval process. But it looks like
they have been asked to comply with the rules by adding IAP to their iOS app
as well:

[https://twitter.com/Fastmail/status/1273800222989324288](https://twitter.com/Fastmail/status/1273800222989324288)

------
auslegung
Apple has the right to do whatever they want, until the courts come in and
remove their rights as a private business. I don't like what Apple has been
doing here, but it's their right. If you believe that the government should
restrict the rights of private companies, then where does that end? This isn't
regulating pollution, or regulating travel, etc. This would be regulating a
business's right to charge what they want for a service whose absence will not
truly harm anyone.

Now if DHH and others were arguing that Apple should reduce the price gouging
from 30% to 20% or whatever they deem is reasonable, I would be completely
supportive of that argument and supportive of making Apple look bad until they
cave (but right now all the rhetoric I'm seeing is "Gee Apple sure is a
terrible person for not giving us free stuff"). But Apple does have to pay
money to host the app, provide bandwidth for downloading the app, and manage
subscriptions similarly. It isn't a _lot_ of overhead, but it does exist. Plus
Apple has spent years building the ecosystem, creating demand, etc. I think
10-15% is very fair, and I can see them going to 20% so that they're still
making a lot of money but it maybe isn't price gouging.

Can anyone point me to high-view conversations around reducing the percentage
to something reasonable? Again all I'm seeing is, "Apple is terrible, it
should be free".

~~~
dternyak
I agree with the general free market ideas behind this argument, but I would
go further and question why the 30% is considered price gouging.

To compare, Envato (you may know them better as Themeforest), charges 55% as
their "Non-Exclusive Author" fee: [https://help.author.envato.com/hc/en-
us/articles/36000047294...](https://help.author.envato.com/hc/en-
us/articles/360000472943-Envato-Author-Fee-Schedule)

It seems to me that if Apple (or Google) had decided to charge 20% initially,
the claim might be that 20% is price gouging and maybe 5-10% could be
considered fair.

