

TinyGrab abandons iOS because of new App Store rules - st3fan
http://blog.tinygrab.com/2011/02/21/tinygrab-apples-app-stores/

======
fat_tony
The page didn't load for me. So here is the cached version.

We love Apple, we really do. Let’s face it, without them TinyGrab just
wouldn’t exist and none of us would be reading this right now; for this we’re
incredibly indebted to them. The homebrew and independent app development
community for OS X is wonderful and vibrant. It’s profitable and turns out
amazingly good apps. Until iOS was on the scene I think it’s safe to say that
the OS X development community was top dog. OS X users are also the most
supportive when it comes to independent apps, unlike their Windows
counterparts, they’re actually used to paying for software that doesn’t come
in a box.

Right now we’re in a spot of bother. TinyGrab’s the strongest we’ve ever been.
We have an incredibly tight and talented team and we’re getting ready to kick
ass again, but we’ve just hit a major setback in the form of Apple’s new
guidelines for subscriptions in iOS and OS X apps. As many of you know
TinyGrab is actually a free app, our revenue model comes from selling premium
accounts through our site. TinyGrab was one of the first apps around where you
had to have an account in order to use the software. We prefer this method of
buying software compared to pesky license keys for a couple of reasons. First
of all it reduces piracy, you don’t get many people sharing their login
details to an online service. The second reason being that you can take your
TinyGrab account with you anywhere. Install the app on as many machines as you
want, on as many platforms, all without additional cost. It’s fair on our
users and also allows us to introduce a nifty little web based account system.

Apple would now like a slice of our pie, which is fair enough. We’re more than
willing to give Apple a cut of the sales that they assist in, but we can’t.
They simply won’t let us. Never mind the fact that 30% is a ridiculous amount
to ask us to fork over, considering that we already pay $99 a year for the
privilege to develop apps for the Mac App Store and a further $99 a year to
develop apps for the iOS store. Never mind that Apple also get a cut of any
revenue that we generate from selling our apps through their stores, they now
want in on our account and subscription service. However by doing this they’ve
just prevented and locked us out of ever being able to introduce the TinyGrab
app into the Mac App Store, as well as not being able to ship updates to the
TinyGrab iPhone app. Here’s why…

Remember that account system we sell via TinyGrab.com? Well if you’re a paying
customer it actually unlocks features in the app which are closed off to free
users. These are features like FTP uploads. Infringement Number 1: “Apps that
unlock or enable additional features or functionality with mechanisms other
than the App Store, except as approved in section 11.13, will be rejected” We
currently sell our accounts from TinyGrab.com through PayPal. We can’t
actually use Apple’s In App Purchasing system because they won’t pass on a
user’s data to us, they also prevent you from purchasing goods that exist
outside of the app and the app store. So, for example, it prevents you from
actually buying a TinyGrab account because the account is a real world
purchase and doesn’t lay within the jurisdiction of Apple. Infringement
Numbers 2 & 3\. “Apps utilizing a system other than the In App Purchase API
(IAP) to purchase content, functionality, or services in an app will be
rejected”

“Apps using IAP to purchase physical goods or goods and services used outside
of the application will be rejected” The move to TinyGrab 2.0 will see
accounts that expire after a limited time if you don’t renew your
subscription. Infringement Number 4.

“Apps containing “rental” content or services that expire after a limited time
will be rejected” And the final infringements are, of course, about the IAP
revenue split.

“Apps that link to external mechanisms for purchasing content to be used in
the app, such as a “buy” button that goes to a web site to purchase a digital
book, will be rejected”

“Apps offering subscriptions must do so using IAP, Apple will share the same
70/30 revenue split with developers for these purchases, as set forth in the
Developer Program License Agreement.”

You might think that these are simple issues to fix, but we can’t actually fix
them all. We can’t provide a free TinyGrab version in the app store and then
sell a version on our site, because you still require an account to login.
Apple wants a slice of that pie and we can’t give it to them; in other words
they’ve locked us out.

We really want to be part of the app revolution on OS X and iOS but it looks
as though that may no longer be able to happen, until Apple fix these issues
and welcome us in again. I’m sad to say that as of today we can no longer
provide development support to iOS, officially, through the app store. Until
Apple loosen up on their restrictions we’re ceasing all active development on
TinyGrab for iPhone. Please don’t see this as a punishment, we hate to have to
do this to our users, but we’ve been fenced out. Today I’m also having to
announce that TinyGrab also won’t be seen in the Mac App Store. Unfortunately
we can’t be a part of this wonderful purchasing platform for the same reasons
that we can no longer officially support TinyGrab for iPhone.

Luckily for TinyGrab for Mac users we still have TinyGrab.com and Apple
haven’t, yet, prevented anyone from downloading apps from the world wide web
and installing them on their Macs without the Mac App Store. So we aren’t
going anywhere just yet. In fact we’re even trying to get a stable version of
TinyGrab 2.0 for Mac out this week. Apple’s new stance on subscriptions and
accounts in applications is incredibly disappointing. At the moment we’re
working incredibly closely with Intel to get TinyGrab for Windows onto their
AppUp store. Intel have been incredibly friendly and helpful, they currently
don’t have a subscription model in place but still allow us to have our app on
their store and sell TinyGrab accounts through our own site. When they
introduce a subscription service we’ll more than happily switch our payment
system over in order to give Intel their fair share of any sales we make. I’m
incredibly happy to be working with a company that is actively encouraging and
working closely with developers in order to get it right. Apple’s new greedy
model doesn’t just affect the developers of applications, it also has a
horrible adverse effect on end users.

We love all of our supporters and all of our users. Thank you for continuing
to use TinyGrab and for being the best community we could ever hope for. We
promise to keep developing the best simple and social screenshot sharing
service for Mac, Windows and whatever new platforms tickle our fancy.

Chris Leydon

TinyGrab Project Manager.

~~~
camcaine
I agree. With many applications it makes no sense to buy anything 'in app'.
The app I was working on (now halted) would require information from an online
account, that would not work in reverse. I can understand this thinking behind
this for real in app purchasing. But it definitely locks out apps that enhance
functionality cross-platform service.

------
jarin
I wonder how this works for apps connecting to APIs that they don't own. For
example, if I'm not 37signals and I make a Basecamp app, would it get rejected
because I don't have access to their billing API?

~~~
brownleej
Along the same lines, how would this affect an email client that connects to a
paid email service? Would be accessing content purchased outside the device?

~~~
kylec
Speaking of paid email services, there's no way to subscribe to Mobile Me with
an in-app purchase. If Apple cared about fairly enforcing the rules, they'd
yank iDisk and Find My iPhone until in-app subscription to Mobile Me was
added.

~~~
tjarratt
A small quibble: the Find My iPhone service is free for all iPhone4 (maybe
all?) owners. That is a good point though, although the rule doesn't come into
effect until June.

------
Andrex
"Luckily for TinyGrab for Mac users we still have TinyGrab.com and Apple
haven’t, yet, prevented anyone from downloading apps from the world wide web
and installing them on their Macs without the Mac App Store."

Key word: "yet."

~~~
tjarratt
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean it isn't true.

Honestly, I don't think blocking paying customers from installing applications
and using root permissions effectively is a sound business strategy for the
desktop / laptop / OS X market. A macbook pro is fundamentally different from
an iphone.

~~~
gokhan
What is the difference that making an iPhone owner unable to install
applications? Or why is it allowed on a MacBook?

~~~
extension
People expect to have root access to their computers. That has always been the
standard and Apple can't change it. People don't generally expect to have root
access to their phones. Apple is largely responsible for establishing that
standard.

~~~
darren_
Carrier-locked phones with appstores were the standard long before iPhones
came out. See: crappy verizon flip-phones with the BREW store. Fair enough
that people might not remember them so well though, because there was
literally nothing worth buying on any of them.

------
nickconfer
This feels more like a good marketing attempt by TinyGrab than the real deal.
For starters, just like many other services calling foul, TinyGrab has not
removed its app from the app store. Everyone is waiting out the deadline for
compliance which seems to indicate that companies are hoping Apple will change
course and are more or less playing a game of chicken in the meantime.

Many of the issues they also explain as problems can be resolved in their
case. For instance while Apple will have the registration data, they could set
up a way for customers to allow access to other devices.

What we're more likely seeing that they have 3 reviews since their version 2
release in December, is that TinyGrab just is not that popular on the iPhone.
They could make the changes, but it wouldn't be worth the trouble. So, whether
intentionally or not, they've made a blog press release that will get a good
deal of attention and probably be more valuable to them then doing nothing and
staying on the app store as is.

~~~
marshray
_This feels more like a good marketing attempt by TinyGrab than the real
deal._

Are you saying their analysis is wrong and the new terms of the Apple store
will permit their app?

This is an honest question, I totally don't understand Apple's development and
distribution model.

~~~
nickconfer
I think they are correct, Apple could reject their app based on the TOS. Its
unclear whether or not they would. I imagine this will be rather murky for a
while for all apps of this sort.

What I mean by not the real deal though is that TinyGrab doesn't appear to
have much of a presence on iOS devices. Apple could have possibly said, "We
need 200 hours of additional programming work from you or we'll reject your
app in the future" and they may have bailed. One indicator of this is their
complaints of the $99 developer fee. I think most successful companies would
welcome a small yearly fee simply because it would reduce the number of low
quality competing apps entering their market place. A small yearly fee helps
ensure to some degree that the app developer has some serious intentions to
create something meaningful.

A lot of the complaining is fully justified. There are other cases like
Rhapsody where the company has over 700k subscribers in the US and the CEO has
admitted most of these users listen to Rhapsody through an iOS device. That
has real implications for them as a subscriber service with small margins. In
TinyGrab's case though, they could work around the terms of service and still
provide access to their user base. They might have to take a large cut in
their subscription fee, or increase their prices, but for a basic
screenshot/share service they have options.

The fact they are not pursuing those options, or at least publicly saying they
won't be, indicates to me they either have a smart PR team that realized the
opportunity here or they just are not successful enough on iOS to justify
continuing anyways.

~~~
amargulies
Would you have them continue to use their time developing for the iOS platform
despite the changes being accepted or rejected is a function of who they get
to review their application and how strictly they follow their own rules?
Didn't Apple post the guidelines to avoid this exact situation?

And what if they are small? How many companies had a large user-base from the
beginning? Also, while small companies may not be of much interest to the
readers of HN, they make up a decent chunk of the world's economy.

Honestly, it feels like they are trying to add to the pressure on Apple to
drop this ridiculous cash-grab. If in the process they get some free
publicity, all the better for them.

~~~
nickconfer
I don't disagree. Its a risk, but keep in mind Rhapsody had this same risk
just trying to get their app approved initially. They can work around the TOS
to get approved as well, thats part of my point. They are just a screenshot
and share service.

In terms of them being small, thats fine too. I'm just stating things as I see
it. The company is not stopping production because they can't come up with a
solution, its that it likely is not worth their time because they are not all
that successful on iOS.

In terms of pressure, this really does nothing to Apple. Rhapsody, Netflix,
and Kindle are much bigger deals. It will be the big service providers that
push the pressure on Apple.

~~~
marshray
Not to mention the world moving with its feet to Android.

A lot of tech people seem to be in love with the iPhone and the press made it
seem like the only smartphone in town for a few years there. But realistically
I don't think it's ever had more than a minority market share of high end
phones.

Apple has historically been very comfortable with a minority share of the
market, but I doubt their stockholders will have infinite patience to sit and
watch Android eat up its market share _and_ developer mindshare _and_ all the
top-brand content provider deals.

~~~
rimantas
I think Apple shareholders are pretty happy to have 50% profits share with 5%
market share.

------
netcan
I may be missing something, but this seems like a mostly unnecessary move by
Apple. At least it doesn't need to be so strong. What exactly are they trying
to prevent here, developers getting around the 30% cut to Apple, crappy user
experience?

For apps where it genuinely makes sense to have an in-app subscription option,
developers will most likely add it in anyway. The increased conversion rate
will make it worth it in many cases.

Not good enough? Start using app store exposure as a stick & carrot.

Don't want people to load an app and immediately be told to go sign up online?
Ban apps that _rely_ on subscriptions.

------
parbo
So, how long until Cydias app-store becomes the de facto app-store for
subscription services?

~~~
rimantas
Never. Recall how many millions iOS users are there, and how many of them have
ability to jailbreak their devices. Then how many would want to. I do program
for iOS and I am not a bit interested in Cydia.

~~~
lukeschlather
Sure. Until you have to use Cydia to keep Pandora, Amazon, Netflix, Hulu and
half a dozen others. Then you have a $600 brick that refuses to do half the
things you bought it for.

This actually sounds _very_ likely if Apple kicks those four companies out of
the app store, as it seems likely they will.

------
highpass
This sucks... For Tinygrab.

iOS users will find an alternative.

iOS + mac users will leave Tinygrab for a system that still works in iOS

The user loses 5 minutes of sign up time. Tinygrab loses income.

Shame there's no way of sending all users to the Tinygrab site for sign up as
that'd negate the 30%. but then apple would moan it's a feature that should be
available in the app and you're back to square 1

~~~
danudey
_but then apple would moan it's a feature that should be available in the app
and you're back to square 1_

Well, Apple's explicitly disallowed this in their rules. You have to provide
in-app subscription, and you can't send users to the website to sign up
regardless.

------
stcredzero
_We prefer this method of buying software compared to pesky license keys for a
couple of reasons. First of all it reduces piracy, you don’t get many people
sharing their login details to an online service._

I thought that the version of in-app purchases that's dependent on a back-end
server hasn't yet been hacked.

------
rewind
I guess I'd better stop waiting for Amazon to provide me with an iPhone app
that lets me launch Cluster GPU instances.

------
lukifer
I can't help but wonder if Apple would allow developers to follow the letter
of the law, but attempt to circumvent the revenue drain via UI. Which is to
say: Provide subscription options through both web and iOS APIs, but
specifically advise users that signing up through iOS is damaging to the
survival of the service, and strongly encouraging them to use a user-friendly
UIWebView to sign up instead. Perhaps even non-monetary rewards could be
attached to avoiding the iOS signup process (badges, points, etc.)

Not that I put it past Apple to reject it anyway. Just wondering how far that
line could be pushed.

~~~
msbarnett
From the Review Guidelines:

11.14 -- Apps that link to external mechanisms for purchasing content to be
used in the app, such as a “buy" button that goes to a web site to purchase a
digital book, will be rejected

I'd say it's safe to assume they'd reject you for even asking users to sign up
through Safari, instead.

~~~
lukifer
I knew you could allow subscriptions that signed up on the web, but I had no
idea you couldn't even link to it from inside your app. Jeebus.

------
Bossman
Sad, but many people saw this coming when Apple announced the new terms. It's
just another step for Apple being more restrictive. What's next?

------
st3fan
I wonder if they are right about having to give 30% to Apple in this case.

From what I read it _sounds_ like you are only supposed to do that when you
allow people to actually register / sign up for the service from the iOS app.

If you already have an account and you simply login to use the iOS app as a
'companion' app, there is no Apple greed involved.

No?

~~~
msbarnett
If you allow people to subscribe outside the app, you also must add
functionality to allow them to subscribe through the app, and subscriptions
through the latter mechanism will cost you the 30% Apple Tithe.

A lot of companies just can't afford to have a group of users who cost the
same as everyone else but only bring in 70% as much revenue.

~~~
rbritton
I haven't been able to find it -- does that requirement require that the price
be the same for both methods? That is, can you charge in-app users $10 and
non-app users $7 so the net is the same?

~~~
msbarnett
That's covered by guideline 11.13, which reads: "Apps can read or play
approved content (magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video) that is
sold outside of the app, for which Apple will not receive any portion of the
revenues, provided that the same content is also offered in the app using IAP
at the same price or less than it is offered outside the app. This applies to
both purchased content and subscriptions."

~~~
tomjen3
Many only shops will show a price that you pay, plus whatever it costs to get
a credit card transaction.

You could do the same here, since it doesn't say "at the same price or less
including all fees".

But then again Apple would properly just alter the rules.

------
kylec
I understand the issue with Readability, Kindle, etc, but in this case, I'm
having a hard time understanding why they simply can't charge for the app in
the App Store. Their first reason is that using online accounts reduces
piracy. However, while there is some iOS piracy, it's sufficiently difficult
(jailbreaking, etc) that anyone that wants to pay for the app will do so. The
second reason is that having an online account allows people to use the app on
multiple devices, but the App Store explicitly allows multiple installations
of a purchased app on multiple iOS devices, and I suspect that the number of
people that want to use the app on multiple platforms (iOS, Android, etc) but
wouldn't buy it more than once is quite small. Most people that can afford an
iOS device and an Android device can afford to buy a $5 app for each device.

~~~
regularfry
Looks like it's because they use the account to actually store meaningful data
online, not just for anti-piracy and to allow cross-device use, and they rely
on the signup process to grab account info which the App Store doesn't give
them.

------
Sakes
"Whatever you tax, you get less of." \-- Alan Greenspan

What Apple is doing could easily be compared to a tax. I don't see how anyone
could expect to not see a significant number of apps and developers leaving
the app store when presented with a 30% loss of revenue from the customers it
generates.

~~~
tomkarlo
That assumes they'd make 70% as much when re-using those resources to build
for other platforms.

If you make 30% less per customer selling on the iPhone, but you sell more
than 50% more copies versus whatever else you'd do with that effort (Android,
W7, RIM), it doesn't make sense to leave from a revenue standpoint. Android is
great but I don't get the sense that many paid apps are doing volume there
comparable to the Apple store.

~~~
Sakes
I think what it really comes down to is profit margins. Over the years I've
heard many times that a company with a 30% profit margin is a very profitable
company. Apple is destroying any incentive for companies, operating at or
below a 30% profit margin, to make their products available via the app store.

If a company is operating on a 30% profit margin, then apple is not taking
away 30% of what that company is making off of that user, they are taking away
100% of what that company is making off of that user. At that point, the
company is better off moving their developer resources towards creating
additional functionality for other platforms to up sell current customers on.

You already have great services jumping ship like pandora and last.fm. I use
pandora everyday, and if I can't get pandora on an iPhone, that is a purchase
killer for me. These content providers are typically operating on a 10% profit
margin, so I think they would actually lose money by servicing iphone users.

I do think development for the iPhone will continue for many of these
companies for the time being, since as I understand it you can still install
apps on the iPhone from outside the app store. But if this changes, I think
many of them will cease to develop for it, since it would be economic suicide.

Please forgive me if I misused any eco terms above. After all Jim, I'm a
programmer not an economist!

------
zemanel
is this even legal? imagine Microsoft asking 30% of sales for Windows based
apps ...

~~~
rprasad
It depends.

Apple is attempting to leverage its position in one market (hardware) to
coerce another market (mobile applications). Under the historical antitrust
analysis, this would have been a per se antitrust violation to even _attempt_
this.

Now, however, antitrust laws are no longer enforce. During the Bush
administration,the DOJ's antitrust department was effectively gutted, and
antitrust was moved close to the bottom of the DOJ's list of priorities.

Obama hasn't changed the DOJ's antitrust priorities since he took office, so
any enforcement of antitrust laws will have to come from the states.
Basically, that means New York's Attorney General, since California's not
going to kill one of its tax cash cows.

~~~
zemanel
i'm counting at least on EU to throw a legal hammer on it someday. iOS is a
platform/operating system and i see much danger in this. Can you picture TV
networks asking for commissions on sales related to advertisement? Developers
already have to pay (annual fee?) for deploying their applications on the
appstore

------
kmfrk
There is no cache of the post, so if you can, please repost their announcement
in the thread.

------
nika
The rule has been in the T&C since launch of the AppStore. Apple didn't
provide a mechanism for in app purchase of subscriptions, and so was lax in
enforcing it. But it isn't like this is news to anyone who read the T&C.

~~~
e1ven
I saw a similar comment in the other thread about this. Regardless of whether
or not it was noted earlier, it is behavior that many people consider
unacceptable.

Many App developers are being forced to change their practices, and find the
new rules too burdensome to continue.

~~~
jordanroher
_Many App developers are being forced to change their practices, and find the
new rules too burdensome to continue._

Which is the best solution to this problem. Please let this be the first use
of the remote kill functionality. I have an iPad. While I would be a little
sad to see big players like Netflix and Amazon pull their apps, I will be
delighted with the uproar when the general public finds out about this. Unless
the companies cave to Apple, this will make the Objective-C debacle look like
small change.

~~~
dablya
Are you saying there is a chance that if somebody like Amazon pulls the kindle
app from the store, Apple will remote delete already installed versions?

------
drivebyacct2
Huh, crashes every single time in Chrome (dev)

~~~
sorbus
Works perfectly fine in canary, though.

------
Bud
Looks like Steve Jobs, or someone pretending to be him, has weighed in with a
comment on that page:

Steve Jobs Says: February 21st, 2011 at 7:53 pm Hey Guys Work your numbers a
little bit and then tell me what you think you are actually losing out on. 30%
or 70% towards your bottom-line.

~~~
Bud
Uh, why is this getting downvoted? It's a purely informational post. Is it not
considered relevant if the Steve weighed in?

Seems there's a bit of a pattern in these threads of downvoting based on
disagreement with the ESP-perceived viewpoint of the poster. Not cool.

~~~
othermaciej
I'm guessing the downvotes are because it's vanishingly unlikely that Steve
Jobs posted a blog comment.

