Some people here seem to be responding to all of this inappropriately.
The simple fact is that Apple is injecting itself as an intermediary in the payment process and extracting a preposterously oversized commission for no meaningful added value.
And it's easy to see that Apple knows what they're doing is wrong. They strictly prohibit developers from signaling that there's an extra cost for purchases made through Apple's system or that there are alternative payment options available. A well-informed consumer would be a clear threat to Apple's gravy train.
This system should have never emerged to begin with. It's highly unethical and, given the direction things are taking [1], will likely be found in violation of antitrust laws.
Anyone know what console makers charge developers these days? My experience is from several decades ago, and is comparable to what Apple charges in its store.
Steam is a counterexample though. You don't have to deliver your PC game through Steam, and many of the big publishers have opted not to.
Both Apple and Steam provide discovery and network effects, which help to justify their cut, but, as Jason Fried mentioned[1], you can't opt-out of these discovery benefits with Apple.
That’s only if the publisher allows that, or in many cases these are “Steam Keys” which are sold in emerging markets where credit and debit cards that can be billed internationally are quite rare.
Yes. Just because you bought a game on Steam doesn't mean you have to purchase all additional content through them as well. Steam installs full-fledged applications directly in the OS, not locked down sandboxed apps like on iOS.
Publishers pay for allowing retail key linkage and in most cases today you are buying Steam Keys from markets where these are sold in stores instead of a retail version and Steam gets a cut.
Steam keys are meant to be a convenient tool for game developers to sell their game on other stores and at retail. Steam keys are free and can be activated by customers on Steam to grant a license to a product.
Valve provides the same free bandwidth and services to customers activating a Steam key that it provides to customers buying a license on Steam. We ask you to treat Steam customers no worse than customers buying Steam keys outside of Steam. While there is no fee to generate keys on Steam, we ask that partners use the service judiciously.
The simple fact is that Apple is injecting itself as an intermediary in the payment process and extracting a preposterously oversized commission for no meaningful added value.
You mean like every retail store - digital and physical?
You're describing stores that exist in a competitive ecosystem with price variation. The analogy breaks down because "buyers of products" doesn't map one-to-one with "owners of iPhones" and because distribution of physical goods actually has significant costs.
Assuming you are in fact in the tech industry, you should know that near-zero marginal distribution cost is one of the core principles underpinning software economics.
I'm also not arguing that Apple shouldn't pass some of the costs it incurs to provide apps (e.g. APN, engineering costs, etc) on to developers and by extension on to consumers. But it should be priced fairly and transparently.
A flat 30% fee without the ability to itemize that for customers or signal the existence of alternative payment methods is just wanton, nefarious extortion.
The 'right' solution would be to charge a specific, itemized "Apple device usage fee" that's separate from and in addition to the primary fee for a service itself. Apple deserves to take a portion of revenue specific to the provision of a service to its users. I can't see an argument where it deserves to take a portion of all revenue developers receive.
But Apple is not permitting this because it would pull back the curtain on their rapacious practices and their customers, having already paid a significant amount of money for their devices, would almost certainly be quite angry about it.
Spotify is a good example of the distortion occurring because of this misguided system. They're charging customers $12.99 if they subscribe through the App Store instead of the $9.99 they would pay outside of it for exactly the same service. So, right now, some Spotify customers are being needlessly pillaged by Apple when, unbeknownst to them, they could get the same exact service at less cost. Spotify apparently had plans to email affected subscribers to alert them about this nonsense situation, but I don't know what became of that.
> “There’s a rationale for this on console where there’s enormous investment in hardware, often sold below cost, and marketing campaigns in broad partnership with publishers.”
I guess it really just comes down to console makers acting like a partner whereas Apple acts more like a mobster running a protection racket.
Apple invests an enormous amount into R&D to make their devices. For example, they make their own CPUs, which happen to be some of the fastest ARM chips you can get.
I don’t think it’s any different from consoles. The main difference is that with a console you know what the deal is.
With an App Store app, the problem is you don’t know if Apple is going to deny your app on an inconsistently applied rule after spending 2 years making it.
They sell their devices at a healthy margin. Their financial interest in the device should stop at the till. If they want to sell additional software and services then they can prove their value on a competitive level playing field.
Right now they are double-dipping, not because of value they are adding, but because of the power they have given themselves over the consumer/developer relationship.
But the Android ecosystem also invests hugely in R&D, it's just spread over more companies.
With consoles the primary justification was always that the hardware is sold below cost. This is purely to the benefit of the game developers, all the risk falls on the console maker, so they accept it for that reason. The iPhone is not only not sold below cost but its price has never fallen in the entire lifetime of the product, from what I recall.
I see the game console argument come up a a lot and I really don’t think it sticks.
Game consoles are not general purpose computers and have a much more narrow intended purpose. Apple themselves argue that the iPad is just as capable (or more so) than your typical computer, which means that we expect it to be capable of computer-y things which are inherently flexible and versatile, not hamstrung by Apple’s rent-seeking behavior.
This also isn’t about 100% transparency of Apple’s costs — saying it is misdirects. We don’t know their costs (though it certainly is below 30% of all revenue passing through in-app-purchases), that isn’t the issue. Requiring 30% of others’ revenue and being forbidden to even mention alternatives is another matter.
What makes a console less of a “General purpose computer” than a phone?
Again. Just like consoles and the Roku - the console makers get a cut of every game sold - even physical games. At one point, Nintendo limited the number of titles third party companies could publish and force them to use their manufacturing facilities.
No retailer just sells things at a markup that covers costs.
A video game console isn't used for programming, video production, writing, homework, etc. You know what I mean. The fact that they are specially packaged PC parts is beside the point.
You keep bringing up video game distribution though, so let's roll with it. Pretend all of software was like video game distribution. How much worse would software be for users? Imagine FOSS on that.
Well, taking in account that a console is a computer, running an OS, I would call it a general computer. Just because people don't port emacs to it doesn't make it less than a computer.
And in effect, I did create a editor for scripts to run on the Xbox 360 many years ago so QA could tweak things, so it is possible, but developers just publish games. If the only 'apps' developed for the iPhone were games, would it stop being a general purpose computer then?
Also, didn't the PS3 have an official linux bistro for a while? Blue something?
And a phone isn’t “specially packaged” and is used for “video production, writing and homework”?
Software would be better for the average user if PCs (and Macs) had tighter permission models - no viruses, spyware, adware, ransomware, surreptitiously reading your contacts without your permission, etc.
I think most can agree the OS should sandbox apps appropriately, and allow access via permissions and such. But like most things, it can be taken too far. The fact is you can't buy a console or iPhone of the shelf and easily (or legally) run your software on it without special permission from Apple or Sony etc.
The distinction is video game consoles are not general purpose. Just like nobody is going to write an essay on an Pinball machine, nobody will (ordinarily) do so on a console. If a game developer need to follow special rules to get into the console market, that's par for the course.
In contrast, on Windows/Linux/Mac/Android I can run whatever software I damn well like without talking to Microsoft/Canonical/Google/etc. It is truly 'general purpose'. There is no required gatekeeper for these systems (as much as they are try to make themselves one). iOS stands in contrast to these - it is not 'general purpose' if I can't run whatever. If Apple decides some software is not allowed on the store that is not 'general purpose'. That is something else - gatekeeping. So when they advertise 'general purpose' that is only true until they decide they don't like something. And they can change their rules anytime they want.
To the 30% thing, every retail store has markups they don't advertise and that's perfectly fine. If Apple or a retailer wants to charge me for access to their store, I'm happy to pay.
But when they force a change to a product and company in arbitrary ways to suite their whims that's pretty concerning because it's a sign they are abusing their power in a very historically been-done-before way. Think about it - 50-100% of a target market is controlled by them. You can do whatever you want - why not charge 50%? 70%? There is no competition - it's literally whatever the highest is you think your PR department can get away with. Not sure how you feel about anti-trust, but sure feels like abuse to me.
But when they force a change to a product and company in arbitrary ways to suite their whims that's pretty concerning because it's a sign they are abusing their power in a very historically been-done-before way.
You mean how Walmart forced the music industry to edit CDs or they wouldn’t sell them or how they force manufacturers to sell crappier versions of their products to meet a price point?
Or do you mean again how Nintendo is infamous about the strict content controls they have on games and have since the 16 bit days and no blood in Mortal Kombat?
Also, see how movie theater chains are saying that they won’t show studio’s movies if they start releasing straight to consumers now even though most movie theaters are closed?
We could also mention GameStop threatening not to sell MS consoles this generation because of their original intention to make games harder to resell.
That's true, but that sort of sandboxing and permission models do not require a gatekeeping corporation to seek rent from everyone who wants to build for the platform. In fact it requires no interaction from the corporation at all.
iOS's app sandboxing and permissions model would work just as well if apps could be sideloaded.
Sandboxing won’t stop shady and illegal developers. Neither will review. The story of what happens to a platform when you allow any crap on it goes back as far as the original Atari 2600 to Android that has four times the market share but still less revenue for developers.
And yet the Google Play Store is fine. Is there more malware on it than Apple's App Store? Sure. But people use it every day, and the world hasn't fallen apart. They could certainly do more to root out malware, but that doesn't mean full-on gatekeeper with draconian rules like Apple has done.
The difference is that the video game developer has priced the console-maker's cut into the cost of the product, and that's the only way it can be sold.
Spotify charges a lower monthly price if you sign up on their website (and then go and sign in on iOS) than if you sign up through the iOS app.
Whether or not this hurts Spotify isn't at issue here; there are Spotify customers who are paying more than they have to because Apple refuses to let Spotify tell them about the lower price.
I think this is the only reasonable way to deal with this. You can't expect Spotify to take the hit. Apple demands extra money for users who sign up through the iOS app, so it's only reasonable to let the users who choose to sign up that way, pay the additional cost that comes with it.
Of course this would be entirely reasonable if it was a conscious choice by those users, but Apple is intentionally keeping the market non-transparent, screwing their own most loyal users.
And that’s what Spotify did when they allowed in app purchases. They charged more for going through the App Store. Do physical retailers go out of their way to say that you can get a product cheaper somewhere else? Can manufacturers advertise in Walmart that consumers can get the item cheaper if they go to Amazon?
For what it's worth, retail stores have been consolidating over the last several decades (and longer, but much less than thousands of years). If you want to sell your product at Walmart or Best Buy they're going to squeeze you on the wholesale price. Sometimes the savings get passed on to consumers, sometimes they don't.
It's not the concept of retail is somehow unethical, but certain stores are certainly less ethical (in how they treat employees, customers, environment, etc) than others, and some of those stores are very widespread.
Also the thousands-of-years argument holds up pretty poorly for a lot of things.
You may be surprised to learn that retail stores pay the manufacturers for their products (at "wholesale" prices), and are free to sell them at whatever markup they wish.
Thus, retailer margin can vary anywhere from negative (doorbusters) to 1000% (i.e., alcoholic beverages).
Ok, if you want to narrow it to software, then it's even more ridiculous, since putting something on a physical store shelf has a lot more real cost than processing a payment or copying a piece of software that has no physical presence.
>The simple fact is that Apple is injecting itself as an intermediary in the payment process and extracting a comically oversized commission for no meaningful added value.
Frankly anyone who says this with a straight face is being absurd. Apple's commission isn't for "payment processing", promotion, any particular API, or service they provide on their platform. That they do all of those things makes it an attractive place to develop for and sell your product, but it isn't the reason why they get to charge 30%.
They charge 30% because they've amassed 1 billion extremely valuable users who are willing to spend money on apps in their marketplace.
> They charge 30% because they've amassed 1 billion extremely valuable users who are willing to spend money on apps in their marketplace.
Apps that are made up to 42% more expensive (NOTE: the 30% fee applies to all in-app purchases and the first year of subscriptions) in a way that's entirely opaque to those users. The fact that you think this is okay is the only thing I find absurd.
You also seem like someone who is for some reason predisposed to be an apologist for Apple's monopolistic business practices. You certainly don't represent what would likely be the average/majority sentiment of Apple's customers, were they sufficiently informed.
Would they also be unhappy if they knew the markup for every store? The markup for soda and drinks in a restaurant? Is there anyone who doesn’t know that retailers markup goods?
Those places are handling physical goods and they have a lot of real costs associated with their services. That's not the same as Apple taking 15-30% of revenue for a subscription where the developer is running the entire backend and all Apple does is host a few install / update files.
There's no developer on the planet that would agree to that deal if Apple couldn't use the customers from their phone business as leverage to extort developers on the software distribution side of things.
It's more like a bouncer at a club getting 15-30% of ALL revenue because they control the door.
Sideloading on Android is a PITA by default, but it's enough of a backstop that some developers like Tinder and Epic have been able to give Google the middle finger.
There are cases where 30% of revenue makes sense. For cheap, purchased apps it's a good deal because the cost of running that infrastructure is comparatively high. However, once you hit a certain volume of sales or move into subscriptions, the value of the services being provided by Google and Apple don't make sense and it would be better to run your own infrastructure.
Seeing what Epic was willing to do to get out of the Play store is a really good indicator of how bad of a deal it is at scale.
And I thought traditional retailers chose their own markup, didn't they?
Most retailers do choose their own markup. Ironically, Apple got sued for working with book publishers where the book publishers set the price and Apple chose the markup.
However, the book publishers wanted this arrangement because Amazon was selling ebooks at a loss devaluing the hardcover and paperback books.
I think there are a lot of people who don't understand just how much retailers mark up some goods. But they're starting to get the idea now that D2C is increasing and you can see items sold directly by businesses at prices much lower than on e.g. Amazon.
>You also seem like someone who is for some reason predisposed to be an apologist for Apple's monopolistic business practices. You certainly don't represent what would likely be the average/majority sentiment of Apple's customers, were they sufficiently informed.
I'm willing to defend Apple because I'm tired of disingenuous arguments from either parties with self-interest or FOSS advocates who have some ideological opposition to Apple's closed nature (and have since the beginning of the App Store and decades before that with Macs).
Apple's customers don't care about the margin structure or costs of app developers. The App Store has massively increased both the supply and demand for apps, and it has actually led to a decline in prices for software. Everyone knows this because they've been complaining about how they can't charge as much for apps as they did in the packaged software days.
I'm sure Apple's customers care about how much money they spend. That's the whole reason Apple strongarms developers into masking the higher cost of products delivered through Apple's app store.
I don't know anyone who would like the idea of paying an extra 15-30% for a product because of a do nothing middleman that's managed to monopolize a portion of the market based on demand aggregation.
It's literally the definition of what I've always understood anti-trust to be. Apple is using their domination in the phone market to manipulate the software distribution market.
The current tech companies (all of them) make 90s Microsoft look like a charitable organization. It's unbelievable to wander around the internet and see so many people advocating for systems that are terrible for the average consumer.
Wealth inequality seems to have an inverse relationship with average intelligence.
If Apple doesn't think their customers care about the Apple Tax, then why do they structure their rules such that app developers can't even hint that the customer might be able to pay a lower price by signing up on their website? Seems like Apple is afraid if they allowed that, customers would spend a lot less through Apple's payments platform.
> They charge 30% because they've amassed 1 billion extremely valuable users who are willing to spend money on apps in their marketplace.
This is almost the textbook definition of extortion. "Hey, wouldn't it be a shame if you lost access to all these potential customers? You better give us 30% of your revenue."
Imagine there was a certain kind of fuel required for all cars made by a certain manufacturer, and that manufacturer used DRM to restrict which companies could sell fuel to the car. In order to fuel the car, the manufacturer requires 30% of the fueler's revenue to authorize fueling. They provide no services for this fee aside from payment processing. Now imagine that that car company has 50% of the car market, and their only competitor is similar. Does this seem wrong?
This makes it seem like they are apples customers to give, vs the entire population of the world who has a choice between apple or android phones, or not having a phone.
I think most people understand that the parent could be describing credit card markets, and I don't think that anyone is trying to make the case that credit card companies don't also take anti-competitive actions.
But the typical credit card fee is ~3%, which is literally an order of magnitude less, and Visa/Mastercard/etc also don't prohibit their merchants from accepting other forms of payment.
They do, in fact, make agreements with merchants to lock out other forms of payment. It isn't universal, true.
They also contractually forbid merchants from taking actions that could make the fee more apparent to consumers, which drives up prices for non-credit customers, although there isn't a direct analog for Apple I can think of.
> They also contractually forbid merchants from taking actions that could make the fee more apparent to consumers
Has this changed over time, though? I often see a lot of brick-and-mortar merchants advertising different prices for cash/debit vs. credit. I probably see it most often at gas stations, but I see it in regular retail stores and restaurants sometimes as well. I moved to a new house earlier this year and even the movers offered a lower price for cash.
Definitely. In the U.S. at least, there were literally laws in place prohibiting merchants from mentioning credit card surcharges or changing prices accordingly, although details varied by state. Supreme Court ruled against one a few years ago on a free speech basis [1]. Now more, if not all, are being challenged.
A lot of the 'discount' for cash is not really because of the credit card fees but if only 10% of the folks that pay cash don't ask for a receipt, they are pocketing serious money that isn't taxed (at least it is in my country)
As far as physical stores, the publisher gets $27 out of the $60 for a typical game. The console maker gets $7 out of the $60. I’ve seen this sane chart other places.
If MS charges 30% for doing almost nothing but putting an XBox game in the store, that's also a scam. I don't know enough about it to know if they provide other services like matchmaking, etc. for that.
The rest of those seem reasonable to me.
The publisher is basically your marketing budget, right?
Retailers' shelf space has a cost and is limited physically. They could be using the same space to sell literally anything, so I think whatever the price of that ends up being it's probably a result of competition across a ton of industries.
The licensing fee is ok too IMO since the console makers take a huge risk producing and selling the consoles as cheaply as possible. It also sounds like a well known, flat fee, not a cut of ongoing revenue.
The problem for me is when digital stores with a tiny marginal cost of distribution think it's reasonable for them to capture a huge portion of lifetime revenue. They're not doing that much. It's bad value and the only reason they can make it work is because they're in a position that lets them act like an extortionist.
It's the cut of every single transaction for the lifetime of a customer that people think is unfair. Ex: $27 to a publisher is fine if it's a one time fee and they're providing $27 of value by advertising etc.. They could never ask for 40% of revenue for all future transactions like DLC and microtransactions because there's enough competition that no one would use them and they'd go out of business.
I'm not going to touch the space about MS, Xbox, or the like because I have 0 insight into that space, but I will point out that the marginal cost of a customer in many SaaS companies is most definitely not 0.
For anyone who is doubting that assertion, it’s all about the costs that scale with the number of customers you have. Beyond the hosting and server costs, there’s support costs. There’s customer acquisition costs (eg click-throughs on ads scale with the number of people click the ads). For more expensive/enterprise SaaS, there’s the account managers and sales team.
You can grow your customer base dramatically with a smallish team of engineers/recurring engineering costs, but many of the costs surrounding them still grow in a linear way.
And Apple also has to host your app and your assets, provide storage through things like CloudKit, provide services through GameCenter, customer support and refunds, centralized notification system etc.
If Apple are taking issue with this being a “consumer” email service, Fastmail[0] have exactly the same setup, download the app but have to go to website (no direct links) to signup and pay. How is it not also blocked?
My only thoughts are that fastmail is also accessible through imap and has corporate accounts with centralised billing. If Basecamp add company accounts to Hay, which they have always said is coming later in the year, does that not fix the problem?
Heck if we're talking about inconsistency we don't even have to look at other apps. Apple itself already approved Hey (and it is in the App Store right now), but is now rejecting updates, simply because it got assigned to a different agent this time around.
The problem is, Apple taking a cut from service where they
don't own the device (you bought it from them; you own it)
don't provide the network (you contract for that yourself)
don't provide the content
Its just some kind of strong-arm tactic - they do it because they can. Like some bouncer outside a club who demands money, but is not employed by the club nor the act. Just standing in the door and demanding money, and you have to pay because you want to get in.
All this splitting hairs over exactly who they strong-arm and who they don't is beside the point.
Google Play is a bad example here because you can absolutely use app stores like F-Droid or Amazon to get content onto your device.
Arguably, they have problems as well, but it's not an apples to apples (no pun intended) comparison.
One has a completely locked down ecosystem that people are worried to speak against lest they lose access to it.
The other has alternatives, albeit ones without huge traction. It does allow you to make decisions about whether Google Play gives value (discovery, etc).
You are confusing market access and distribution. If I wanted alot of eyes on my app and I saw a benefit from the appstore then I would pay the 30%.
All I want is being able to give to MY customers, who I paid MY money to acquire, a native app. Apple is refusing to allow this, unless I pay protection money. Textbook rent seeking
I can think of many exampled that have worked out. In some cases, apps like Gambling apps are not allowed to use the Play store at all, and yet manage to just fine and get installed directly as APKs.
It definitely varies business to business, and I'm not saying that I wouldn't put my app on Google/Apple, but that is because I do need the discovery.
In the case of Basecamp, they bring their own customers and network. This is true of a lot of big companies and Enterprise apps (some of which have exceptions already).
Those are all very different propositions where the company brings some value - the theatre itself, the player software, the content/catalog. A good illustration of how bankrupt the Apple Walled Garden is - just a fence to extract money with zero added value.
How well did the mobile developers do before the App Store when they tried to peddle their J2ME apps on feature phones? What are the chances that game developers would entice the whales to buy loot boxes and tokens for pay to win games if not for an easy payment method?
Does Amazon provide value with the Kindle? Does Valve with Steam? Amazon market place? eBay? The console makers?
The theaters don’t bring too much value as evidenced by them holding on by tooth and nail trying to convince the studios not to go straight to digital.
Kindle: you can load books from other sources, you can also read Kindle books on other devices
Steam: you can redeem keys purchased from other stores, install apps from other stores, and they don’t mandate using their system for in app purchases
eBay: do they have any policies like this? I haven’t heard much about them or made an eBat purchase in a decade.
Amazon Marketplace: There actually is a strong argument here that they capture so much of the market that opting out is not an option. This is very similar and already under much scrutiny.
Game Console: Also very similar to this. I expect they will lobby hard on Apples side for that reason.
Kindle: you can load books from other sources, you can also read Kindle books on other devices
Apple participates in Movies Anywhere Sling with Amazon, Google, Vudu, and a few other vendors. If you buy a movie from any of the participating studios, you get credit for purchasing for all of the stores.
You can also purchase physical movies from other places and redeem codes to get credit as if you purchased them from iTunes.
Apple doesn’t require that you must only use their subscriptions. You can subscribe outside of the store. You can every charge more subscriptions to make up for their 30%.
Of course you can opt out of Marketplace. You can set up your own website with places like Shopify.
I know I’m late here but you buying that steam key from another source means that valve gets its cut anyways. To issue that key they had to give them cut.
…and you know what? If Apple's payment system makes your app better, you can use it! That's how it works on Android, and it sometimes bugs me when things use their own payment systems, but that's also the point. Google's payment system brings value. Sometimes it even brings '30% per purchase' worth of value. Why does Apple have this weird inferiority complex about theirs?
Except these apps aren't really using the marketplace. Pretty much the entire service is being delivered outside of the marketplace and they purposefully don't charge for the app download so as to not use the payment processing of Apple.
Apple is trying to force apps to go through the marketplace and their payment processing, however, also forcing them to take the 30% markup. The policy as followed here is "Everything you provide you have to provide via Apple's services so we charge you extra".
Apple is charging developers for the rights to distribute on their platform. You will see this model everywhere around you: theme parks, grocery stores, e-commerce websites. The fact that the world's most profitable company has to play by different rules is quite frankly ludicrous.
What does the marketplace do for a subscription app after it's installed? Even if you think Apple deserves some money for referrals / customer acquisition, 15% of lifetime revenue can't be a number you think is fair for that.
Again, they don't provide the channel, once the app is installed. Not the device; not the network; not the content. They just extract money with rules.
Again, they do provide the channel before the app is installed. If you know the economics of acquisition vs. retention you should understand that the former is usually more expensive/valuable than the latter.
I'm perfectly willing to entertain arguments about the right amount Apple should charge for that, but it seems to be an all or nothing discussion, which doesn't seem really sensible to me.
Its the coercive element that is objectionable. They go to extreme lengths to keep their market closed, which is obviously not for your benefit but so they can do this thing. Not because a free market leads folks to adopt the Apple marketplace, because there is no choice.
The lengths folks go to apologize for Apples essential extortion is amazing.
Where's the extortion is the case that needs to be built here. "I can't sell my app at no cost to the most wealthy segment of mobile users" is not a credible complaint.
They also require apps to go through their walled garden. If they had an F-Droid equivalent (Cydia doesn't count here) then maybe people would be more amicable to this rebuttal.
Apple has an abusive relationship with developers. I bet this harkens back to Jobs being pissed about jailbreaking and having to open up the platform. I think the culture still reflects that basic misunderstanding at the company. It's ironic, because it's the apps and developers that made the iPhone what it is - case in point, "There's an app for that," which they actually went and trademarked. https://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/mobile/10/12/app.for.that/inde...
You have no idea about how Nintendo and all of the console makers treat developers. Roku won’t let commercial streaming apps on their platform without making a deal with them.
It’s how the industry has worked from day one. “Wrong” is an opinion. In a legal sense it’s “precedent”. This is how the entire industry works. Before Apple, software developers only got a 30% to 40% cut to be in carriers app stores. Yes they had app stores where you could buy J2ME apps. Most retailers have a far greater wholesale to retail margin than 30%.
If apple would just insist on taking it's cut from ads and indirect revenue from surveillance and spyware, so many of these problems would go away. Apple currently effectively subsidizes the surveillance of its users with adware and spyware apps getting free ride.
The only problem with this approach is that it's basically completely unworkable. But other than that minor issue, it's a great idea. Maybe the ad revenue side of things could be done, but the spyware side is hard to even come up with a theoretical valuation.
While it's theory only, one could even theorize gmail having to put a valuation on the user profile data gathered and give Apple a cut. Either that or stop surveilling its users.
There might be other examples, but Basecamp doesn't fit. Most Basecamp users don't pay for Basecamp, a company does. It is like Jira, individual users don't pay for it. Basecamp also has a limited free plan, as does Jira Cloud.
Hey is currently only for individuals, there is no free option, every user must pay.
(I'm not defending Apple taking a cut of subscriptions. Just pointing out a difference.)
I think you nailed it. All the consumer subscription apps I could think of offer in app purchase. While the apps that target businesses do not. It seems Apple is enforcing their rules to selectively target consumer oriented apps.
Which, from a consumer point of view I appreciate it. I like Apple subscriptions.
However, for the businesses selling the 30% cut is hard to stomach.
Hey is taking $10/month. With $7/month revenue going to them they will still be the most expensive email app available, so I don't see why it would be so hard to stomach.
$99/year != $10/month. It's $8.25/month. Also something like Fastmail is $9/month (or $90/year) with 100GB of storage (which is what HEY provides) - so it's actually pretty competitive pricing.
I don’t think it’s fair to use Netflix as an example. Netflix is big enough to make their own rules. We don’t see internal business arrangements but I wouldn’t be surprised if there would be flat fee between Apple and Netflix to settle that.
Hey is trying to do just exact same thing but surfing on the verbosity and not business power per se.
That depends on ones philosophy.
It's a driver vs passenger issue.
Big companies such as Netflix, Disney etc. are drivers, they have impact on the user base. If Netflix stopped working on Apple's devices we would see huge outflow of users.
Hey on the other hand is a passenger. Sure, they might have 50k users in the queue, but them not being on Apple's platforms will probably shrink this number significantly. It's unlikely that Android users will switch to Apple because of the Hey experience.
From that it boils down to personal views. If one thinks that driver should have the same amount of power as passenger this scenario is upsetting.
Yet this is not universal view and I'd argue that the opposite view is the "norm". We have celebrities who can get more while spending less, specialists in the fields who have a lot of bonuses average Joe doesn't and well known businesspeople who have access to business which are out of reach. Do you imagine having 1.8b$ debt ? And yet Donald Trump was in that position long before he became POTUS.
Hey is exercising the same stuff. They want to become celebrity to slide. They don't fight for the change of rules. They fight for Hey to be approved.
EDIT: Having deployed a few apps in the past which required login and not being harassed, I thought something else was going on.
This seems to be an unspoken policy change. I'm joining the outrage bandwagon now.
> What's infuriating is Apple's inconsistency. Some apps offer subscriptions outside of the app store and are still there (including Basecamp!)
That doesn't violate guidelines. Unless your app takes users outside of the app store to purchase stuff(including the subscription itself) without in app purchases.
Having an app requiring login is ok. It doesn't matter that the login is protecting a paid service.
To clarify, Hey does provide only a login, and no outside linking (or reference to outside payment, as Apple requires). Apple is now requiring that in-app-purchases must exist for "consumer apps" that aren't "readers", based on a changed interpretation of existing rules. If the above sounds ambiguous to anyone reading this, that's the issue.
'Hey' itself may not be doing this right now, I don't know. I was referring to:
> 3.1.1 In-App Purchase:
If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, etc. Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase.
There’s a special clause for this type of ”reader” apps and it allows external subscriptions.
”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.”
Looks like for example Netflix app does even show a link to their registration page. You can only login to existing account.
I don't think picking a fight with Apple as a PR strategy is a good move. The rules on the app store are very clear, if you're charging a subscription for functionality you're providing through an iOS app, that subscription must be available through Apple's payment system. I know people don't like that, but it's not unexpected. So given that Hey knew the rules, it seems a bit manipulative for them to submit their app and then go on a massive PR campaign about how outraged they are. I understand that they may feel that the app store rules are unfair, but this whole fanfare seems ridiculous to me. Instead they seem to think that they're going to benefit from picking a fight with Apple - it reminds of small youtubers who make expose videos about big youtubers to try and get people''s attention.
Are they? According to Protocol.com, which got in contact with Apple over the thing:
>Apple allows these kinds of client apps — where you can't sign up, only sign in — for business services but not consumer products. That's why Basecamp, which companies typically pay for, is allowed on the App Store when Hey, which users pay for, isn't.
But if I search for the word "consumer" in the App Store Review Guidelines, the only result is the following:
>Data gathered from the HomeKit API, HealthKit, Consumer Health Records API, MovementDisorder APIs, ClassKit or from depth and/or facial mapping tools (e.g. ARKit, Camera APIs, or Photo APIs) may not be used for marketing, advertising or use-based data mining, including by third parties. Learn more about best practices for implementing CallKit, HealthKit, ClassKit, and ARKit.
Is there another set of rules that actually covers the things that Apple says if the rules are "very clear"?
>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.
According to Apple/Phil Schiller, any application not explicitly mentioned in this category must offer subscriptions as IAP.
>"We didn't extend these exceptions to all software," said Schiller. "Email is not and has never been an exception included in this rule."
Gmail doesn't actually have to offer Google One subscriptions through the Gmail application. I imagine they are covered by the "cloud storage" exception, which makes me wonder if Hey could also get around it by giving Hey users some cloud storage with their email subscription.
Add every single traditional bank to the list. If you don't have an existing contract with a bank you can download their app but you won't get past the login screen.
How is "reading my email from the hey server" different from "reading a video from the netflix server"?
Neither app functions without a separate, non apple subscription. The main criticism of Hey, from apples perspective, is that the app doesnt just work when you download it, but the same applies to netflix.
I personally think Hey could get around it by adding some other kind of feature to the app, like a way to read their blog. When it opens on IOS you have a "sign in" or "continue with the free version" and the free version aggregates basecamp marketing copies, as long as that free version isnt just a webview, but some enhanced native experience.
Can they also advertise the cost of their service, through the applepay experience, as "x+30% apple tax"?
With how much of their app is server side (nearly all of it, minus the translation from HTML to native,) I wonder how much they can get away with, without updating the client.
The other interesting thing about this dynamic is, Apple shipped Leopard with Ruby on Rails, which Basecamp created. So in the past, Apple took Basecamp's open source code to make OSX more valuable, but now when Basecamp wants to benefits its users, at no real cost to Apple, Apple says "not without paying us our cut." Maybe not morally wrong, but at least stinks of bad karma.
Read the full statement that Apple gave to Hey and the media [1]. If Hey made their email client a standard works with any email account then it'd be fine without in-app purchases. The specific Hey service could be purchased outside the App Store if they want to avoid giving Apple a cut.
The Gmail app is not exclusive to the Gmail email service. You can use it to access other email services. Google Photo and Google Drive which are tied to only Google services offer in-app purchase of additional storage.
iTunes billing for Netflix is not available to new or rejoining Netflix customers.
If you are attempting to create an account on an iOS mobile device, you can sign up on Netflix.com using a mobile browser and will be prompted to provide an alternate method of payment.
But that's true of literally any business - e.g. if I go to Warner and ask them to license some music for my game, I'm going to get ignored. If EA want to license music for a game, they'll be getting lavish dinners and a selection of fine wines along with a menu of the new bands Warner want to pimp.
Again, the rules are clear, readers are a specific exemption. I would say that Microsoft Office stands out in tht list as the only thing delivery functionality not content - but I don't know the details of that app.
I would say that example breaks the rules, I don't know how popular it is - we need to be realistic about how often an App store with millions of apps is going to miss something.
Maybe it's the number of users. If the iPhone was the phone you can't watch Netflix with (or any similar service), maybe a lot of people would buy an Android device.
These are all exempted app categories. Email is not:
> “You download the app and it doesn’t work, that’s not what we want on the store,” says Schiller. This, he says, is why Apple requires in-app purchases to offer the same purchasing functionality as they would have elsewhere.
To be clear, this is against the App Store rules for most apps. The exceptions here are apps that are viewed as ‘readers’ that only display external content of certain types like music, books and movies — and apps that only offer bulk pricing options that are paid for by institutions or corporations rather than the end user.
Schiller is clear on our call that Hey does not fit these rules.
“We didn’t extend these exceptions to all software,” he notes about the ‘reader’ type apps — examples of which include Netflix. “Email is not and has never been an exception included in this rule.”
By itself, this argument makes sense. But the problem is how wildly unevenly it is applied. If you're "big enough" you get a pass.
Also, they got their first version through without any issues or a peep about this rule. And only when they needed to push a codefix is when they got held up.
If you're going to have rules, they MUST be applied evenly.
How do you "get a pass if you're big enough"? If you're trying to use Netflix or Spotify as an example of big companies getting a pass then it'd have to only apply to them. But it doesn't.
Smaller subscription video or music apps could use the same section in the App Review Guidelines for "Reader" apps to have an app without in-app purchases that you buy outside the App Store.
In what bizarro world is an email reader not allowed to use rules that apply to "reader apps"? Especially when things like video and music services, that involve no reading, can.
This doesn't mean the Guidelines are foolproof and always consistently applied.
If you're just trying to read the Guidelines as legalese then it seems to me like there's some serious ambiguity with what exactly the "Reader" section allows.
It seems like Basecamp gets a pass based on the "access to professional databases" exemption. But at what point does a service that caters to consumers AND businesses cross over that line?
The App Store Review Guidelines have been a nightmare to parse through and the Review process an inconsistent mess for many years now. IAP really took it to a whole new level.
This is one of my biggest frustrations with App Review.
It's easy to convince clients to budget for a few days exploratory work that might be rejected, but they're less inclined to do so with the possibility of an approval not being permanent, and then having to sink a lot more money into reworking that functionality at an indeterminate point in the future.
Sometimes you get stung because you're genuinely trying to slip something through that breaks the rules, but other times you get a reviewer with an axe to grind. One app I worked on was in the store for 18 months before they took issue with the way we'd implemented subscriptions. They were also not happy that there were links to Amazon, which if you clicked around for a bit, would take you to Prime Video or Amazon App Store.
One time, we had an update rejected for having the word "Android" in the app.
While technically mentioning "other mobile platforms" is prohibited in the review guidelines, in this case it was in user-submitted content that you could only find through search.
If one is able to install software without going into the App Store, then one is also liable to be socially engineered into installing software from outside the App Store.
No thanks. Keep iPhones in their walled gardens where they are safe. Androids exist for experimentation.
> No thanks. Keep iPhones in their walled gardens where they are safe. Androids exist for experimentation.
That's fine too, don't strong arm me out of 30% while letting others get away with no paying that. Some people want a walled garden (you) and dont mind paying for it, others would like to install software of their choosing without letting Apple know what they install and by who.
If there’s an option to opt out of the walled garden, people will be fooled into taking it. There is no way to differentiate between you, who wants to install what they wish, and those people that believe it is really Apple cold calling them.
Apple is not a monopoly, so I feel their attitude here is fair.
There is. By only allowing purchases by in app purchases, Apple can force the app developers to be fair in their return/refund processes. There are tons of scummy companies and developers want to take money from the customer and not return it if the customer is unhappy or even when they are exercising their legal rights and hope the customers to not bother for their 1 to 5$ purchase.
And the many stores we can trust are more important than hypothetical abusers. Hypothetical abusers can be addressed in other ways, for instance Microsoft shuts down malicious servers and entities using lawyers and law enforcement.
You've been able to do that for a while now. Without a paid developer account you can self-sign any app you want to run for 7 days. With a paid developer account you can install whatever private apps you want.
The developer agreement states that you're only allowed to sideload apps that you're responsible for developing yourself. Maybe if it's open source you could make an argument for that being allowed, but it's not a general purpose install path for consumers.
> “Application” means one or more software programs (including extensions, media, and Libraries that are enclosed in a single software bundle) developed by You in compliance with the Documentation and the Program Requirements, for distribution under Your own trademark or brand, and for specific use with an Apple-branded product running iOS, watchOS, tvOS, or macOS, as applicable, including bug fixes, updates, upgrades, modifications, enhancements, supplements to, revisions, new releases and new versions of such software programs.
> “Provisioning Profiles” means the files (including applicable entitlements or other identifiers) that are provided by Apple for use by You in connection with Your Application development and testing, and limited distribution of Your Applications for use on Registered Devices and/or on Authorized Test Units.
However in practice, for example, I use the Apple Developer Program with Cydia Impactor to build and install apps like Spike and xDrip on my kids iPhones (they are both T1D). It's basically point and click. [1]
That's the thing, the rules aren't clearly defined, and aren't universally equally enforced and thinking that they are is naive. I've had numerous apps launch without question, then in a subsequent update have gotten rejected for stipulations in the App Store guidelines that I honestly don't remember reading, only to appeal and have the appeal succeed and my update be approved. It is, and always has been, up to the reviewer you get as soon as you get passed the automated binary checks.
If anyone, they should be the one to do it. Basecamp/37Signals is established and has enough money to fight the fight without being included in the bickering like it would happen if Google or Amazon did it.
Not to say anything is coming from this, but at least they do have enough money to make buzz.
Yet this is a very important problem, apple blocking people from having other app stores, and taking a large 30% cut of the revenue. Showing real harm convinces some people who only see theoretical problems.
There are countless examples of other applications that have done exactly what Hey is doing without being banned. This is not clearly against the rules. To the extent that it is against the rules, Apple has deliberately phrased them in vague ways to let them change the meaning later. It is the exact opposite of “very clear”; it is abusive. Even Apple fans like Gruber agree.
I don't know about Netflix but you can use the Spotify app for free, right? Now from what I understand, Apple says that you can't do anything with the "Hey" app until you get a subscription[1]. Which is then different from the Spotify app.
[1] "The Hey Email app is marketed as an email app on the App Store, but when users download your app, it does not work," Apple said in a letter to Basecamp CEO Jason Fried on Thursday. "Users cannot use the app to access email or perform any useful function until after they go to the Basecamp website for Hey Email and purchase a license to use the Hey Email app."
iTunes billing for Netflix is not available to new or rejoining Netflix customers.
If you are attempting to create an account on an iOS mobile device, you can sign up on Netflix.com using a mobile browser and will be prompted to provide an alternate method of payment.
iTunes billing for Netflix is not available to new or rejoining Netflix customers.
If you are attempting to create an account on an iOS mobile device, you can sign up on Netflix.com using a mobile browser and will be prompted to provide an alternate method of payment.
Section 3.1.3a[1] of the App store review guidelines. There is an explicit distinction drawn between free apps that allow you to access purchased content.
They seem to fall under the “reader app” exception that I understand as basically consumption of licensed works such as movies, songs, books.
My guess is that those categories just don’t have the margins to support a 30% cut without charging more then other platforms.
An email service, dating all or games are basically arbitrary prices where every sale is making some money for the company. The store cut is annoying, but basically it’s still revenue.
The rules on the store in this area have changed interpretations without notice. It not being a new rule but becoming far more strict all of a sudden is a big part of the issue.
Also, going to the press works. DHH is taking one for the team by fighting this.
> "All the rules they're citing should apply to Gmail and Outlook as well," Hansson told Axios. "
I agree Apple is being inconsistent here, but not vis a vis gmail and outlook. Those are free services, so they’re not the right comparison. Apple doesn’t require IAP for these because there is no payment involved.
Netflix, on the other hand, proves that Apple does allow apps that are useless unless the user has a separate subscription.
Yes, but streaming video apps are explicitly given a pass on that rule, along with several other categories:
"magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage, and approved services such as classroom management apps"
How the hell they came up with this list is anyone's guess. Seems like they kind of tacked things on that they were concerned about completely removing.
The Gmail app is not tied to the Gmail email service. It can be used to access non-Gmail accounts. Google Photos and Google Drive both allow in-app purchasing of additional storage space billed through Apple.
Edit: Added statement about Gmail app working with non-Gmail email accounts.
I wouldn’t consider them business-only as most individuals interacting with the App Store have bank accounts, so that argument breaks down.
I wouldn’t consider them stictly “reader” apps as you can perform many non-passive things in many banking apps (make deposits, iniatiate transfers to and from accounts, pay bills, etc), so that argument doesn’t stick either.
You can’t use the app unless you have a (most of the time) paid account.
This letter is actually astonishing. In this letter Apple:
* Chastises them for making free apps in the past
* Reminds them they've had to distribute their apps for free (almost as if they should be grateful and now give them some money)
* States they would accept their app if it provided unrelated functionality or access to competitor products (who are oddly not subject to the same rules).
* Implies that everyone is following the rules but them (which is demonstrably false even if you accept the "Reader" and "Business" definitions they provide)
Also, according to DHH, they leaked this letter to the press before sending it to the Basecamp CEO. Nice.
The argument is so strange, it's almost as if "email" is a special term of art that causes Apple to categorize this app in a way that is not is not consistent with other SaaS products. Even with that said, there are no other similar email apps like Superhuman that are subject to these rules. If I was a Chat or Email based SaaS company CEO and I relied on the iPhone to complete my multi-platform value prop, I would be very worried about this happening to my already approved app.
but that $99 charge is really a way to reduce trolls and scams. For regular us devs it almost meaningless, it blocks poor people in the west and third world devs.
It should probably be pointed out that this whole fight is about Apple not getting 30% of $99 on whatever signups the iOS application for a pre-release email platform would generate.
And Apple has boasted about having over 20 million registered iOS developers. Who knows how many of them are actively paying the subscription at the same time, but it's probably still a very large number.
If you think that developer licenses are even in the same order of magnitude as the value of 30% of in-app purchases I think your intuition is way off.
30% of in app purchases where the frictionless Apple IAP approach is deemed less valuable by the developer*
There's a very important distinction here. If Apple made their own in-app purchase API optional instead of mandatory, it isn't like every single developer would ditch it overnight. Apple's system is legitimately useful in a huge number of situations, and everyone knows that. It just isn't wanted _here_, and that should be okay.
Yup seems like that just happened and they're still charging the $30. That means $108 lost to Apple in the first subscription-year and $54 every subscription-year thereafter. I'd be surprised if Superhuman isn't trying to find a way to pivot their customers onto their own billing behind the scenes.
Does iOS support PWAs yet? I'd have thought that PWAs would have all the features required for an email application at this point.
Apparently 20% of Apple's revenue comes from their marketplaces (music, apps, etc), but in terms of profit it's probably significantly higher since the costs ought to be much lower than their hardware.
So it seems like there's a decent chance that at least third of their profit could get wiped out by PWAs in the long run. You'd think they'd be treating developers a little better.
> Apple typically gets 30% of in-app subscriptions for the first year and 15% of renewals.
I think that 30% then 15% commission are both way too high. Apple should be able to charge a modest commission fee to be on their App Store but that price is way too high. Maybe 5% then 3% would be more reasonable.
But the worst part about this is that Apple is so inconsistent with its enforcement. There is an anti-competitive element to Apple’s enforcement behavior that is very concerning. I’m surprised that Tim Cook has allowed this behavior. Long term this will hurt app developers and Tim should understand that.
- An app does not need to be part of the appstore to function
- It's Apple's store - not a community project, fascinated how people seem to think they are accountable to some higher authority - it's also totally optional
- Apple is the one being consistent
- HEY is also built by one of the most attention seeking developers in the world, who's sole purpose seems to be criticising large corporations on Twitter
- I like ownership of my data - not a manifesto by a closed door company based on "promises" and feel good messages
Probably naive question, but couldn't they markup the In-App-Subscription by whatever % of cut Apple is taking? The same is done by restaurants for things like Uber Eat/Postmate: they have their prices on their menu, and a marked-up price on these platforms.
downvotes: mind explaining why my naive question is not a worthy contribution/question? or if you just disagree, I'm genuinely interested in understanding what I'm not grasping.
> The same is done by restaurants for things like Uber Eat/Postmate: they have their prices on their menu, and a marked-up price on these platforms
I do not believe Apple's tax for IAP applies for physical goods or services. Only digital products or goods. If those companies are charging more, it might be for another reason.
> 3.1.5 Physical Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchase goods or services that will be consumed outside of the app, you must use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit card entry. Apps may facilitate transmission of approved virtual currencies (e.g. Bitcoin, DogeCoin) provided that they do so in compliance with all state and federal laws for the territories in which the app functions.
> but couldn't they markup the In-App-Subscription by whatever % of cut Apple is taking?
They can do this but they are not allowed to inform their customers on the iOS app that the prices are lower elsewhere
> Section 3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services:
Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired elsewhere, including consumable items in multi-platform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase.
>I do not believe Apple's tax for IAP applies for physical goods or services. Only digital products or goods. If those companies are charging more, it might be for another reason.
They could, but that'd require them to markup their service from $99 per year to $142 per year without being able to explain to consumers that $142 is not the regular price. So anyone that downloads Hey from the App Store is greeted with $142 and might be put off by it compared to $99.
The rule used to be it has to be the same price. Has that changed, has Dropbox received special treatment, or is the Euro market granting them the pricing exception?
Why should they have to spend a month building a whole new iPhone-first onboarding flow and updating their entire app to accept a different subscription provider? Who's to say that if they spend that hundreds of thousands of dollars of developer time Apple won't just knock them down for some other imagined infraction?
I said dollars, not hours. I stand by that estimate.
Right now there's no mobile-first onboarding flow. That's a completely new thing they'll have to build. They'll also need to update all of their code that checks subscriptions, handles dunning, etc., to now work with multiple billing providers. So yeah, it's going to take a lot of time, which is a lot of dollars.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars to do in app purchases. As an example, do you really think Marco Arment - sole creator of Instapaper before he sold it, The Magazine, and now Overcast spent “hundreds of thousands of dollars” just to create in app purchases?
evan_ is thinking in terms of "What would it cost to get a bunch of depressed FAANG engineers to code this as part of their day job?", and you're thinking in terms of "How many packages of instant ramen will a motivated entrepreneur have to eat while he codes this in his parents' basement?"
Well, Marco made a few million from the sell of Tumblr to Yahoo and he is one of three hosts on either the most popular Apple related podcast or the second most popular podcast. I don’t think he’s a struggling entrepreneur.
If you're gonna use him for your argument you can listen to Marco's actual thoughts about this on the episode of Accidental Tech Podcast that dropped today, I won't spoil it but he's not on board.
I didn’t say he was onboard with the decision. I am not onboard with the decision. I said it’s a gross exaggeration to think a competent iOS developer couldn’t get in app purchasing working in an evening.
Turning on the Wallet entitlement will take like 10 seconds, I don't know how long it'll take to build the rest of the subscription stuff but probably not a long time. You're ignoring that they are going to have to update all of their backend billing code to support two different billing providers, and design and build a mobile onboarding flow in the app. Then they have to support those things going forward.
They obviously knew that Apple Pay subscriptions were an option when they were whiteboarding the product, and they decided to not do them. That says to me that they weighed the options, did some math, and decided that the numbers worked better if they didn't spend time on that, and kept 100% of the money.
They weighed the option of not having to pay 30% and (understandably) didn’t want to do it. If a company run by the creator of Ruby on Rails can’t do that without spending “hundreds of thousands” of dollars they are grossly incompetent. I doubt that they are.
A month? What type of piss poor developers do you think BaseCamp have that it takes a month to implement a billing system? This is like “My First Program” level of complexity.
Not defending Apple here, but I see commenters making different sorts of comparisons and saying that Apple is taking an unfairly large cut. Can someone do an objective comparison with publishers of print and ebooks and what commissions they take before the author gets paid (please consider all kinds of publishers and publishing platforms)? AFAIK, that industry is far worse (look at pragprog.com to see what’s considered a fantastic rate), and hardly any reader/consumer seems to be complaining.
If at all my earlier comment was misunderstood, my intent was not to point or justify Apple's policies by implying that "someone else is doing worse, so it's ok for Apple to do this" on the cuts it takes. It's just that the comparisons seem highly selective and dismissive of counter-arguments (there was one such point about video game consoles that was dismissed too).
The big problem with Apple and Nintendo is that compared to other companies, they don't have enough rules for app submission written out, and that many of the rules are vague enough to be subject to individual interpretation. The end result is chaos.
I would personally love to see Hey come back with a free Apple version of their service which gives the user a hilariously long @hey.com email address and lets them use it.
Yeah, like the digital equivalent of work to rule. 1MB storage, no attachments, forced signature, etc.. It would be hilarious to see Apple respond to that because it's still more ethical than all the trial subscription scams they allow on the app store.
I wouldn't even put any limits on the account (outside of the fact that your address would be an exceptionally unfriendly string.
Since this sign up is through Apple, I assume Hey would have the device ID, and could limit repeat/duplicate/spam sign ups in some way.
I am also assuming that the marginal cost of hosting an account is trivial.
In this situation, _worst case_, someone creates a free account, likes how it works, and then has to pay $99 elsewhere in order to get a reasonable address.
This would kind of be the definition of malicious compliance. And honestly, ya, I would love it.
> If you would prefer not to offer users the option of in-app purchases, you could consider having the app function as marketed — an email client that works with standard IMAP and POP email accounts, where customers can optionally configure the Hey Email service as their preferred email service provider.
Here's another possible solution. Make the "Hey" app a general e-mail client for all e-mail clients that support the "Hey" protocol, whatever that is. Publish a rough draft of the protocol and call it a day.
30% (then 15% forever) of revenue is a huge amount of money. If Hey thinks they're following the rules and the app got approved the first time, Hey might already be committed to pricing that's going to be hard to change. It could break their business model.
It's also really obvious it's nothing more than rent seeking because Apple adds almost no value. The infrastructure for payments, updates, etc. on other platforms is still needed, so I'm sure the only reason they're even using the Apple app store is because it's the only way to distribute their app. 15% of lifetime revenue for Apple to host some update files is a really bad deal.
IMHO if Apple approved it "by mistake" the first time they should have just owned the mistake and granted Hey a one-off exemption from the rules.
I suggested this on the other article about this yesterday: They should just offer an in-app subscription for some absurd price ($1000/year, for example).
Apple is certainly an illegal monopoly for not allowing other game/app stores on its handheld devices and dictating the terms and conditions for developers. And hiding behind the DMCA to ban circumvention tools for its intrusive DRM. And competing against its own third-party developers. Bring on the anti-trust lawsuits!
Fortunately we don't have to patronize Apple's evil monopoly on handheld gaming and game/app stores anymore. As for me, I'll go back to playing Animal Crossing, which I bought on Nintendo's eShop on my Nintendo Switch! (Then I'll maybe I'll lay down some tracks with Korg Gadget and write some code in SmileBASIC. Maybe I'll buy some DLC for my favorite games also - all from the Nintendo eShop, naturally.)
One of the issues that is brought up in the article is that they enforce their rules selectively.
"All the rules they're citing should apply to Gmail and Outlook as well," Hansson told Axios. "So it's laughable that they state that we must follow the rules that everyone follows when it's plain as day that not everyone follows the same rules."
It's a pity that so many companies have effectively locked themselves inside the walled garden. They did it willingly too and it's fantastic until it's not.
Every time the topic of Apples app store rules comes up on HN the general consensus always seems to be that the rules are fair.
Now that a highly visible company is kicking up a fuss it'll be interesting to see if Apple even responds
Even more bizarre considering Hey is not even publicly available yet. They could have easily deferred this fight without it having any effect on the absolutely miniscule number of new clients that are getting in before the general availability.
The news I read yesterday [0] (from Hey's founder?) painted Apple as the obvious villain.
Today's news (the above link) shows a slightly differnet picture.
> "The Hey Email app is marketed as an email app on the App Store, but when users download your app, it does not work," Apple said in a letter to Basecamp CEO Jason Fried on Thursday. "Users cannot use the app to access email or perform any useful function until after they go to the Basecamp website for Hey Email and purchase a license to use the Hey Email app."
Basically Hey doesn't work as a standalone free app. The user has to download it AND subscribe somehow. Apple basically dictates, the developers either 1) offer some Reader-like free features, or 2) pay the Apple tax and build the subscription feature with IAP.
I am not saying the 30% tax is justifiable.
The logic behind Apple's rejection doesn't seem completely unreasonable to me.
How so? I'm looking at the Netflix app in the App store right now and it offers in app purchases. I don't have to sign up before using it. I can sign up in the app (I'm assuming based on this screenshot from the App Store - https://imgur.com/a/t6AqwEx). I already have an account. Not going to jump through hoops to try it out.
You need to logout to see the first time user experience.
Those in-app purchases are grandfathered in from older versions of the app so they don't lose those subscribers. They no longer allow new subscriptions through IAP.
Google and Microsoft control(ed) more of the markets that they operated in: in the 1990s to 2000s what percentage of PCs ran Windows? What percentage of search does Google have?
Apple/iOS has 100% on their platform. Noone stopped you back then from buying an Apple PC, installing Linux or BSD etc. either. Noone stopped you from installing an alternative browser on either Windows or Android, yet they got slapped for it.
This is like saying McDonald's have a monopoly because you can only buy McDonalds in a McDonalds restaurant... go somewhere else if you don't want the McDonalds menu.
Your analogy is just blatantly incorrect from the developer's perspective, very user-centric. You can't choose not to sell "patties" "McDonalds" if you want to actually sell your "patties".
And as I said, people were just as free to install other browsers than IE on Windows and Chrome on Android, but it was still considered bad monopolistic behaviour and they got punished for it.
> And as I said, people were just as free to install other browsers than IE on Windows
Check the ruling against Microsoft: they were slapped down for this because they had a monopoly in the field of PCs / computers, and they (tried to) leveraged that monopoly into a monopoly for browsers.
Android is the dominant smartphone platform (per units shipped), so Google is closer being considered a monopoly. Apple does not have a monopoly in smartphones or computers, so I'm failing to see how any parallels here.
The best argument you can hope to make is that a duopoly exists between Android and iOS, and the duopoly together should be treated as monopoly for practical purposes.
But claiming monopolistic behaviours and associated restrictions on a company that has 20% of the market is silly.
> But claiming monopolistic behaviours and associated restrictions on a company that has 20% of the market is silly.
iPhones have a majority of the marketshare in the US. It's silly to ignore that.
> Check the ruling against Microsoft: they were slapped down for this because they had a monopoly in the field of PCs / computers, and they (tried to) leveraged that monopoly into a monopoly for browsers.
If we follow your logic, there were other platforms that did not run MS Windows. They only had a monopoly on Windows computers.
If the government wants to regulate the duopolist together as a monopoly, then let us say so and argue the pros/cons of that strategy. But saying that iOS has a monopoly when they do not is what is silly.
> If we follow your logic, there were other platforms that did not run MS Windows. They only had a monopoly on Windows computers.
If Sun had a monopoly on scientific workstations, and they tried to leverage that to crush competition in another market, then that would make sense. But the only market in which there was a monopoly was consumer PCs, Microsoft had it, and they were found guilty of abusing it:
> The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft had abused monopoly power on Intel-based personal computers in its handling of operating system and web browser integration. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Windows operating system. Bundling them is alleged to have been responsible for Microsoft's victory in the browser wars as every Windows user had a copy of IE. It was further alleged that this restricted the market for competing web browsers (such as Netscape Navigator or Opera), since it typically took a while to download or purchase such software at a store.
I'd call it a duopoly, which is not as bad as a monopoly but it's definitely enough to set market prices and arguably should subject them to antitrust scrutiny for anti-competitive behavior.
They have more than 50% of global app sales revenue; Apple's App Store revenue is about 80% higher than Google Play. They also have about 57% of the "premium" ($400+) smartphone market. That has a strong impact on the ability for developers to create and sell apps.
Not to say that Google is innocent either; they've started adopting some of Apple's practices as well. Unless you're a masochist, going outside the Apple/Google ecosystem is not really a viable option.
As an app developer you can't NOT be in the Apple app store. As a consumer you can simply say no to Apple products. As a business Apple is too big a percentage of your customer base and you're forced to play by their arbitrary and capricious rules.
>"The Hey Email app is marketed as an email app on the App Store, but when users download your app, it does not work," Apple said in a letter to Basecamp CEO Jason Fried on Thursday. "Users cannot use the app to access email or perform any useful function until after they go to the Basecamp website for Hey Email and purchase a license to use the Hey Email app."
Imagine if all applications on the App Store had to work straight out of the box without any kind of interaction with any kind of an external service. Even my bank would be barred from the App Store since I actually need to get in my car and drive to the bank in order to have an account for the damn thing.
Rival bank's application doesn't even allow you to login even if you have an account if you have not logged into that account at the bank's website at least once. So much for working out of the box.
Banking apps do not have an exception in the App Store Review Guidelines, so I don't really understand why they're getting off so easily.
EDIT: I'm retracting my statement. This is how things used to work. I don't see any changes to the policy. Yet, the app is still not getting approved. And it is not taking users to its own payment portal.
So I got no clue WTF is going on.
> In rejecting Hey's appeal, Apple notes that the developers could work within Apple's rules by allowing the app to function as a reader for standard e-mail, while also offering Hey subscriptions from its Web site. Alternatively, it says Hey can add an in-app subscription option, sharing revenue on those purchased within the app while keeping all subscription revenue earned outside of Apple's ecosystem.
1) Don't handle payments inside the app at all, do everything payment-related on the website.
> 1) Don't handle payments inside the app at all, do everything payment-related on the website.
It's not quite so simple as that.
If you're charging a subscription for functionality you're providing through an iOS app, that subscription must be available through Apple's payment system.
The simple fact is that Apple is injecting itself as an intermediary in the payment process and extracting a preposterously oversized commission for no meaningful added value.
And it's easy to see that Apple knows what they're doing is wrong. They strictly prohibit developers from signaling that there's an extra cost for purchases made through Apple's system or that there are alternative payment options available. A well-informed consumer would be a clear threat to Apple's gravy train.
This system should have never emerged to begin with. It's highly unethical and, given the direction things are taking [1], will likely be found in violation of antitrust laws.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/13/supreme-court-rules-agains...