Every sufficiently big organisation starts doing it soon after the first bogus lawsuit that costs them millions of dollars.
Also, I would be extremely suspicious of any reform of the legal system coming from megacorps.
This is not to say the system cannot be improved, it's just wicked hard and you cannot blame any single actor for not doing that.
Taking 30% without providing alternatives to install apps seems totally unfair
It does feel prevalent in large corporations though.
It was a small display test app / game which apparently is not allowed as the users might start thinking they have a defective product (and perhaps ask for a refund / replacement).
Finally I asked them to give me their rejection in a formal email.
Two days later the support person called back and said they made 'an exception' in my case and are happy to fix it under warranty.
Cards usually also allow you to request a chargeback against defective goods for which a merchant refuses to make you whole. In this case you could probably call up Amex or whatever and say "I bought a laptop that is defective within the warranty period and apple refuses to RMA it, here's the proof..." and they'd do it no questions asked.
I've done both of these things with Amex and Chase and it's usually a painless process for each. With the chargeback route, however, it's common for companies to retaliate by closing your accounts or otherwise refusing you service until you reverse the chargeback. If you actually tried to chargeback the macbook I wouldn't be surprised if you found yourself with a "your iCloud account will be closed in 30 days" email. When I charged back a local CSA for refusing to cancel my subscription without an onerous phone tree despite multiple emails I received a voicemail saying, very politely, "Your account is now closed but you will be banned from ever opening a new account with us in the future."
Fine by me...
If it's a case of extended warranty, wouldn't the card company just require an official repair quote?
Now Apple does not offer anyway that I have heard of for people to offer an alternative app store.
This CAN be overcome by a special app that keeps connection with an alternative push notification server, but it would still be prone to offloading and would have to run a persistent notification.
The proper solution would be unlocking notification services on Android devices and allowing to chose alternative push notifications providers. This can also be applied to iOS.
I have built several push services for my previous projects it always sooo hard to implement right. iOS for example, uses 25+ different parameters to optimize push delivery depending on your app usage, on how you are using your phone and so on.
Good luck to build this as "third party" and keep everything private.
There are really almost no need to run app in the background or at least constantly send data without a reason (mostly just tracking).
UPD: When deciding how to build something i have one small trick: first ask question about who can make better decision about something?
For example? Who is more capable to make decision about battery usage, about tweaking core performance, etc? It is obviously kernel or silicone itself. App will never have required information to build perfect performant app for every device. This just means that you have to build a kernel by yourself and even more: common kernel for every phone.
Aren't battery stats not enough for you? If your app uses too much battery, you can stop using it. Or you prefer some other people to make this decision for you?
The only 'special treatment' that happens is on Google/Apple servers which determine the priority of some of notifications.
How do I know? We're very involved with the XMPP protocol. The irony is that it is insanely hard to maintain an XMPP connection to a client on both Android / iOS, despite devices under both these OSs being an always connected XMPP clients.
Moxie has cited this previously with no proof, despite protocols like xmpp performing similarly on mobile networks.
The issue is that a long lived TCP connection consumes some valuable RAM and a port number on a valuable IP address. It costs carriers something for push notifications to work, so, they tend to aggressively close long lived TCP connections that aren't going to recognised push datacenters.
For that to work you need business relationships with the carriers of course, stable IP addresses, and enough users of your push service for it to be worthwhile.
IPv6 would fix it by eliminating IP scarcity and CGNAT, but most mobile networks aren't provisioning handsets with IPv6 addresses.
Whether FCM uses these technologies, I don't know. I lack the hardware to easily inspect the mobile radio traffic on the necessary level (the best would be a DIY stingray based on one or two OsmocomBB-capable GSM phones, maybe combined with a Faraday cage to place one of them into, together with the smartphone.
They may not perform anticompetitive behaviour like bundling (as they have already been fined for in the EU over Android and Play Services).
I don't see the anti-competitive part there. There are good reasons around consolidating resident daemons and only using a single TCP connection with a special keep-alive configuration.
And from experience, it's perfectly possible to not use FCM, at the cost of a persistent notification that alerts the user about this, so they can get rid of abusive apps.
Maybe not exactly anti-competitive (but maybe): It requires you to have hundreds of megabytes of Google blobs with root permissions on your device, which some people don't like.
If course this pales in contrast to Apples actions.
My understanding is that this is not an effect of side loading, but an app not using Google Cloud Messaging, which is not available when play services are not installed.
Anyone can distribute their Andrioid app using their desired way. Even via web site. Exmple: https://signal.org/android/apk/
Sending push messages to Android phone using Firebase Cloud Messaging(FCM, formerly GCM) requires "Google Play Services" installed on that Android device. Google Play Services is not depends on Google Play Store and is not requires that applications using Play Services should installed by Play Store.
This just isn't an issue for 99.9% of users.
My take is this: computers (especially phones) are like cars: some people love to tinker with them and take on a project car that they tweak to their liking, but most people need a reliable and inexpensive car that can get them to and from the grocery store.
Now some people never open the hood of their car. And for those who do, a lot of car manufacturers have just the answer -- they have a second hood under the first hood (it's plastic and only has holes for maybe the wiper fluid).
but apple is bolting the hood shut. and welding it.
(it's such a shame, really)
Until years later we have fewer people interested in learning how computers work, because the only devices they ever owned were locked down walled gardens.
Maybe these people don't even know what they're missing, because they've never even seen it?
Those of us who understand the implications now would benefit ourselves and many others by helping more people find that spark, that need, want to tinker.
I can do the same thing on linux yet my computer's not a cesspool of malware.
>Most consumers are dumb and it should not be possible to trick them into installing arbitrary binaries.
No, most users are uneducated and don't care and expect computers to be safe the way other things are. This doesn't make them dumb, this doesn't mean they need to be treated like children. This means the information needs to be communicated to them more effectively'
Most users are adults capable of dealing with the myriad of dangerous things life brings. This is because most things come with adequate instructions and warnings.
Operating systems follow two extremes, they give no fucks and let you do what you want with minimal instruction or they lock you up and tell you what to do. Both of these are inadequate for average people and don't reflect the way most things worked, up until relatively recently when businesses decided people needed to be treated like children.
Computers are heavily integrated with daily life. Treating users like a bunch of kids that need safety padding is insulting and ridiculous. If there's a failing at the general public in understanding these concepts, it's a failing both in education and honestly, a collective elitism that places people who know technology above regular people, reflected both among regular people in the tech community and large tech companies that results in either them being taken advantage of or manipulated, or again being treated as invalids incable of looking after themselves.
While I'd like to believe that, injury and death statistics from things like road accidents, smoking, alcohol, etc.; the number of machines owned in botnets; and the overall response to COVID-19 is not convincing evidence of this.
You can look at all the dumb shit humanity does and scorn it all you want then stop and think about the fact that, you me and everyone else is here with all the things around us. This shit didn't come from nowhere. Humanity, for all it's faults and weaknesses did this and you exist because of this.
The average person, as much as that implies, is capable of some pretty impressive things and to dismiss them is pretty arrogant and I bet if you took a look at your life you've done some pretty dumb shit...and if not I salute you, you are truly above all others.
They are also capable of some pretty stupid and self-destructive things, too, even in the face of "adequate instructions and warnings".
Android actually does it decently well. Apps are pretty well sandboxed with quite clear interfaces and side loading can be enabled in the settings (even as a side loading fan I think it's a bit easy, considering the consequences).
"most popular" in the sense of "most widely installed and tolerated", perhaps, but definitely not "most popular because people actively chose it where there are other viable options" because, for many people, there is no viable alternative (e.g. gamers).
There's an increasing feeling that Linux is getting there for gamers too. There are already mainstream narratives  that Linux may be better for gaming than Windows!
 E.g. https://youtu.be/6T_-HMkgxt0
True, I definitely see a lot more of the things offered by people like itch.io or Humble Bundle having a Linux option.
An average consumer might get most of their apps from the vetted store while still able to install transmission or VLC directly.
The problem with windows was that there where no properly implemented permission systems and there were a ton of bugs that malware could exploit, the situation seems to have improved significantly from Windows 98.
We are talking on the web right now. Your browser executes arbitrary code. Should we ask someone to approve every single website before it can be accessed?
Easier to coordinate a deployment for, and affects all users, not just installing one. It would also allow you to control the messaging users see when they open your app and it only loads the walk out day screen.
Punishing the users of an app for the behaviour of the store, while attention grabbing and potentially impactful, seems a bit like chucking the baby out with the bathwater.
You didn’t see this coming? Good one, now pull the other one.
I have >10 apps for external clients currently in the App Store that are exactly like Hey (not email clients though), focussed on business+consumer clients, with a login and you have to order outside the store to be able to login. We even reference to that in some of the apps. You can't do anything in the app until you pay for a subscription on the repspective site. The most recent one got approved 2 months ago, and some apps are >2 years old and have received regular updates.
The difference may be that they do not have the revenue Basecamp has.
In the past when an app got refused, we resubmitted without changes and got approved. It's a shitshow.
I’m not sure if this is in violation of the rules or not.
It is convenient as a user to be able to manage subscriptions via iOS which makes it easy to track and cancel, but 30% seems way too high for this?
Forcing IAP while taking a 30% cut seems like rent seeking when [edit: you control the only place users can get apps on your platform]. Extra problematic in the Spotify case where you compete directly and undercut them.
I’d prefer a forced IAP requirement where Apple didn’t take a cut (or they just charged some up front fee or something).
(Meta: McTossOut, your comments are dead - I’m not sure why)
A more telling comparison would be a download-only game that was self-published by the developer since app store apps don't usually have separate publishers, physical distribution or retailers.
Although I agree that the lack of open alternatives for app distribution in the game console world is pretty similar.
For many small/medium businesses, the Apple/Google tax is often much higher than the founders salaries.
About the value apple provide, try to create your own software distribution channel, and check how much is it costs.
Yet Apple don't charge a distribution channel cost if your app is free-at-download. How does that make sense? The backend costs to them are the same. In fact they're likely to be higher for free apps due to the many magnitudes more downloads versus subscription apps.
Apple want to have it both ways: the thriving ecosystem of free apps that promotes the platform AND their cut of subscription apps. Legislation that said that all app publishers should pay a flat fee per download would seem the fairest way forward.
They don't need any of that for free things.
I do agree with you that it is ok (and arguably "fair") for Apple to charge a 30% fee for the convenience of IAPs. However, the real debate here is that some developers don't want IAPs, so should Apple be allowed to force them to add them?
Like the current HEY example, the developers aren't even taking money in the app, or allowing sign-ups in the app. You must be an already existing customer to use the app. But Apple is strong-arming them to add this functionality and to use these APIs that Apple gets a cut through. Should Apple be allowed to force them to add an feature to sign up and pay in the app (a function that was never planned or intended by the developers) just so that Apple can get their cut.
In OP's post he was strong-armed the same way. He had no need for any IAPs at all. He didn't even let users sign up in the app. In fact, the title of his app included the phrase "Existing users only". Yet Apple forced him to add functionality to enable IAP in the app to sign up new users, when his app is literally titled and designed around existing users and not new users. I would argue that this triggers the Anti-trust alarm bells.
Sure if you want to take advantage of the convenience that IAP provides, then let Apple charge whatever they want. If the amount is too high then developers would stop using it because it wouldn't match the value that Apple provides by their convenience. But what if I don't need in-app-purchases. Should developers be forced to add them when the app isn't even designed to use/need them? What if a developer doesn't need the convenience of IAPs and wants to take a credit card themselves? Shouldn't they be allowed to? The only argument that Apple makes in this fight is "We own the platform that ~50% of American smartphones, and if you want to participate in that market then you need to share the wealth you generate". Again, it sounds an awful lot like a monopoly.
Another example is Kindle and Audible. Apple won't let users buy Kindle or Audible books through the iOS App even though Amazon already has those credit cards associated with its' users' accounts. Kindle could enable one-click purchases (or even force you to type in a credit card every time), but Apple won't let them sell any books at all through the iOS app, citing the same rules as above.
If you're using iOS and searching through the app store and then download an app, being able to sign up and pay via the app is useful to you. If you download an app and it doesn't do anything, and you can't sign up or pay via the app then that's a bad experience.
The problem with this argument is it's a lot weaker when Apple also forces you to pay a massive tax when enabling this. I think the argument would be a lot stronger if they forced IAP compatibility, but didn't take a cut and just charged a reasonable up front fee to list on the app store.
I'd argue even an up front fee is unnecessary though. I'm happy with Apple curating the app store to prevent spam and low quality applications, I'm happy with them forcing standards like IAP, but I'm not happy with them controlling the store and then rent seeking.
Apple should make money from making and selling incredible products. That's why people love them.
I’m sure you also think that physical good stores should bare all of the cost and allow companies to sell things for free without a markup...
> I?m sure you also think that physical good stores should bare all of the cost and allow companies to sell things for free without a markup...
I'm sure you know that's a strawman.
I know plenty of people who won’t download random apps on their computer but will on their mobile devices. Because they have had bad experiences before.
Maybe, but that's a pointless stance. The practical consequence is that a product is likely priced to maximize (num units sold x profit per unit), and the higher price (143% of what was planned), will lead to a (probably steep) drop in the size of the target audience. FWIW, on a macro level economists worry about analogous problems for a ~1% percent increase in sales tax, so Apple's 30% cut is definitely a huge negative impact.
BTW, this is a great example of an ultimatum game that Apple is playing with developers. It is possible that developers collectively taking the (short-term) "irrational" step of pushing Apple's margin on to users (and being very vocal and explicit about this as a "penalty") might catalyze the users to pressurize Apple about the margins.
If most users are unaware they have the option, it's not really an option.
Technical debt, added complexity, additional user support, the overhead of having forked subscriptions in the userbase...
I think Apple has every right to expect developers to pay to be part of their platform, which they already charge for through an annual fee. Expecting a "cut" of every developer's "revenue", even when the product is a cross platform software product, seems extreme.
Can I pay a one time fee to get a product stocked at any retailer?
Yes, I would be fine with any of those scenarios.
A $1,000 fee to add your app to the app store would be more preferable to me than a nebulous rule about taking 30% of my gross revenue and having Apple dictate to me what my overall business model needs to look like.
> Can I pay a one time fee to get a product stocked at any retailer?
To compare what is going on here with a traditional retail environment is really an apples and oranges comparison. If Apple wants to take my app, price it and sell it at markup, be my guest.
What they are doing is more like if Best Buy forced Nest to give it 30% of every Nest cloud subscription on Nest devices bought in Best Buy retail outlets. Or if Best Buy forced Apple to give it 30% of iCloud subscription fees for MacBooks sold from within Best Buy retail outlets, only after Apple implemented "Best Buy Payments" into it's MacOS software to ensure those fees were collected.
Apple tried exactly that - to let booksellers set their own prices and they just mark them up. That’s what the publishers wanted instead of Amazon’s pricing ebooks as a loss leader - devaluing the paperbacks and hardbacks. It was shot down by the justice department.
It sounds nice but if you're a Spotify or Netflix it lets Apple undercut you very easily
I do think 30% is a bit much these days when the store first opened it was a great deal vs the other options at the time
These anti-competitive practices are just over the top in my opinion, I really wish businesses like this would be broken up.
Worth noting that YouTube appears to be violating Apple's guidelines (3.2.2) by forcing users to pay for functionality that is part of the built-in capabilities of the operating system. (Background play mode)
To your point, there are alternate YouTube players which allow background video playback besides the website and iOS app on iOS, but you have to sideload them. There may be others which do not require sideloading, but none that I’m aware of. I’m not sure but it’s likely against some kind of TOS to use them, but interoperability exemptions for accessibility may apply.
If it were against policy to enable play of video in the background, then it seems that would be an even more egregious violation by YouTube, as not only do they have the functionality in the app, but they charge users money to access it.
This doesn't justify 30%. I actually think it's fine for Apple to take a cut. Just not 30%.
If the fee is for Apple to curate the ecosystem and verify apps are safe, this looks an awful lot like they're using it to drive up revenue instead.
There's evidence too that these practices are done hastily too, when you use IAP, but the app expects you to create a secondary account as well.
Sliding scale microtransaction growing pains, I suppose. Things were nicer when apps were inexpensive commodities. People aren't able to run business analysis like this and it makes the market opaque which is good... for Apple.
Android, while not managed by a single manufacturer, is a unified platform and competitor to iOS.
It's like you had two paper mills that dominated the market, and they wanted to claim a percentage of every novel, newspaper, etc. printed on the paper they produced. Oh, and you can't use that paper you bought to write erotica or other things the company disapproves of.
You could compare it to Costco, where you have to pay just to get into the store, where Costco sells their own labels side-by-side with the competition. The big difference is Costco doesn't force you to pay with costco credit cards at the cash register.
Costco (Canada at least) also only allows MasterCard for credit card payment. Prior to that it was exclusively Amex.
Even then it's not the same because you don't own the Costco store like you own your phone.
Unfortunately since the MS antitrust trial, they've missed opportunity after opportunity to prevent monopolies or oligopoly of Big Tech companies so they might pass here as well.
Seems like a weird hill to die on for an email app to me. The market is saturated.
How would you write the rules to get what you want? It’s a complex question.
I used to always buy Mancini roasted red peppers for salads and sandwiches. My grocer did a strategic sourcing exercise and now carries a house brand and some other brand. Should they be compelled to carry Mancini?
WalMart requires that vendors be able to fill orders on tight timescales. If you can’t, your out. Is that ok?
Costco requires that I pay them to shop there. Is that ok?
My wife owned a mall kiosk, and part of rent was a cut of the gross. Is that ok?
But we have an alternate universe where users can install outside of the official store yet hardly anyone takes advantage of it.
If you like updating manually, don't give the store you use permission to do it manually. Why are you running software you don't trust anyway!
> But we have an alternate universe where users can install outside of the official store yet hardly anyone takes advantage of it.
See the post you replied to.
How do you know which app makers to “trust”?
I've seen that with Handango (they raised from 30% to 40% and then 50%) and they went bankrupt when the App Store launched.
Same story with the phone operators, their margins was in the 50% range.
Can't say I'm a huge fan of the 30% haircut, but I get to push my product directly to millions of people in a week and get paid monthly? What a time to be alive.
Apple not allowing side-loading seems like the main issue.
Only in the Apple iOS land. If I don't like Google Play's revenue cut, I can list my app on any of a dozen or so alternative stores (Amazon, F-Droid etc) and all Android Users can install my app. Same story on Windows, Linux and even Mac devices.
They would be pretty happy if they could have a link on their site to download the iOS apps, for their customers.
If Apple still wants to review every app that can be installed, they could propose an option to be in the App Store but unlisted - then the fees goes down to 2 or 3%, just like a credit card fee. But they won't, because they can get away with shaking businesses 30% so they'll keep doing it until someone forces them to stop.
And I am perfectly aware that the situation was even worse before the App Store.
In fact, by all means, Apple created a viable ecosystem for a huge number of independant developers and that's great.
Still, 30% is not justified, and this is not Apple hate, Google and Valve are on the same boat.
If you are shocked that companies take a fee for distribution then wait until you see how things work in the real world.
That is not a good analogy. Supermarkets, retailers etc charge a fee from the vendor because that is their primary source of income ("bread and butter", if you may). In the OP's case, the "supermarket" is an iPhone device which the user has already paid a premium price for.
EDIT: bduerst covered this already https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23571076
Grocery stores also have slotting fees.
> Grocery stores also have slotting fees.
Again, the whole point I'm trying to make here is that comparison to grocery stores just doesn't work (because of reasons mentioned in the first comment)
* English is not my first language so I'm having trouble finding the perfect word.
Having stock costs money, you have to decide what to stock and take a loss if you can't sell it, nothing is automated so you need more staff...
It's really apple to oranges.
You don't have a choice to distribute iPhone software.
Just broaden the market to software in general or even just software for mobile phones and tablets. Then you have a choice again. iOS's market share is below 50% even in the US, and much lower globally.
(I have both iOS and Android devices, and I specifically like that Android's Firefox allows add-ons like uBlock Origin. Apples doesn't allow those.)
What happens in reality is developers either capitulate and / or sneakily separately contact their users and get them to pay through another payment processor.
App Store has been around for over a decade.
The percentage has actually decreased.
Very few mobiles games can be sold using the subscription model.
This is nothing else than a tax.
And because both Apple and Google are adjusted on the same tax rate, this is exactly like a monopoly.
I am sure their infrastructure costs are largely covered at this point.
Developers should unite and strongly ask for a progressive reduction, a few percents each year.
That's not how monopolies work or are defined.
You can argue it's some kind of bad. And that monopolies are also a kind of bad. But not all kinds of bad are the same.
I’ll explain ...
Apple deeply cares about two things, (1) user experience and (2) user privacy.
Today, Hey iOS when downloaded IS NOT FUNCTIONAL if you didn’t know to already sign up for the service on their website. That’s a horrible experience and no one likes it. Especially Apple.
On Trust/Privacy, Apple is safe guarding users CardOnFile data with all of their advanced security features that they have worked directly with the major card networks that no small developers (or even frankly medium or large developer) could compete with. This benefits the consumer by reducing fraud, and not having your credit card data sitting in some developers data unencrypted. Apple also helps auto update cardonfile data when the card expires so that the developers don’t lose revenue just because of expired cards.
As for the 30% fee, why shouldn’t they get a cut? If the App Store was a physical brick and mortar store Like BestBuy, I guarantee you then BestBuy wants to make margin on products they allow in their store. (A) it’s a distribution channel to a consumer you as a developer don’t have, (B) there’s hard costs to putting your product in the App Store “shelf” and (C) Apple is providing all of the easy and secure payment processing on behalf of thr developer.
Note: I’m not trying to be combative. I’m just playing devils advocate and pointing out this topic is way more complex than others are making it out to be.
The only reason for this is that Apple explicitly disallows apps from linking to or even mentioning subscription options that do not go through Apple's payment ecosystem and pay Apple's tax. Blaming the ensuing bad user experience on app developers is a case of "why are you hitting yourself?"
> As for the 30% fee, why shouldn’t they get a cut?
That 30% is, ultimately, coming from our pockets. Apple wants it because it prefers our money in their pockets. We, as the consumers, should fight back and demand it be lowered because we prefer our money in our own pockets. I don't understand why I should advocate that Apple should make apps more expensive and should take more of my money.
Everyone loves Apple for their unwavering stance in user Privacy. How is this not just another example of that?
(I’m not trying to be combative. I’m just playing devils advocate and pointing out this topic is way more complex than others are making it out to be)
Compared to what? If there is a fraudulent charge on your credit card, issue a chargeback. If I had two options: 1) Once every couple of years I may get a credit card's details stolen and I have to spend perhaps an hour on the phone with the bank to get thing sorted out, 2) the credit card issuer gives me a card with some futuristic technology that makes fraud literally impossible; so I don't have to spend that one hour every couple of years sorting out a fraudulent transaction; however, the credit card adds a 30% surcharge to every transaction—I would choose option 1, no questions. Wouldn't you?
If I sold my widget online direct to consumer for $99 and got to pocket all of that.
Why wouldn’t I assume that if I tried to sell my widget inside of the brick and mortar store for the same $99, that they wouldn’t want to make margin on selling my widget for me - which would reduce my take home profit
To use the brick and mortar store analogy, would you be happy if you were forced to sell only through Walmart (and thus paying their margin) and not directly to customers, even when you are completely capable of doing it?
Why can’t they sell this direct to consumer in iOS via safari?
And make it a web app on mobile just like how it’s a web app on desktop.
Why doesn’t iOS Safari have these capabilities? Why can’t we download apps and sideload them in the same type of sandbox that App Store sourced apps do?
There’s already an interoperability exemption for jailbreaking. I hope that this precedent is reinforced and expanded through lawsuits and legislation if Apple won’t implement first-party sideloading support willingly.
It’s a matter of equal access to technology and accessibility of tools. To own a thing is to be able to adapt it and make it work the way you need, as well as the way you want. The first sale doctrine applies to software too. Clickwrap EULAs are not always legally binding, and you cannot arbitrate away certain unalienable rights. If I own a thing, I can modify or disassemble it, as well as sell it or otherwise transfer it. These concepts need to be enforced more specifically for digital assets such as apps and mobile operating systems.
Is that also against an Apple rule? If so I can somewhat understand.
EDIT: You can upcharge IAP purchases, but you can't advertise the cheaper alternative. That's wildly anti-consumer on Apple's part, surely the EU can't be happy about that kind of situation?
You could argue people could choose Android, but that's not quite the same thing since the user has to completely change operating systems and hardware to do it.
I'm not sure there is a good non-digital analogy.
If Apple cared about the user experience they could still require in app sign up and IAP, but not take a rent-seeking cut.
They could make money by inventing and selling really great products (which is why people like them in the first place).
Why can’t Hey offer a mobile web version of their app?
Again, just playing devils advocate. But Hey can in fact make their product accessible to iOS user via Safari. And Hey wouldn’t need to give Apple any money for that.
Safari will even let user save a web app directly to your home screen.
Ironically, this functionality existed BEFORE the Apple store even existed.
EDIT: why the downvotes? I’m just trying to facilitate a friendly two-sided point of view on this topic. See my NOTE in my original parent post. I’m just trying to point out this is a way more complex topic than most realize.
No email client is useful without push notifications.
All other browser on iOS (including Chrome and Firefox) are wrappers around Safari, because Apple restricts other browser engines i.e: Chromium, Firefox.
Look at how many requests for new features/API's are there on the WebKit forms. Apple choses to ignore them because if Apple were to really support PWA's properly, this situation wouldn't have happened.
Apple also randomly clears storage for website added to homescreen and there is a limit of only 50mb. Apps like Gmail cache data on the scale of 600mb to several GB.
But push notification absolutely kills your battery.
Back to point number 1, user experience. It’s not a good user experience if your iPhone lasts only 2 hours because push notifications kill your battery.
They can still wake up your phone when they're delivered and that will drain battery.
* If an app frequently wakes your display with notifications, you can turn off push notifications for the app in Settings > Notifications. Tap the app and set Allow Notifications to Off.
> No email client is useful without them.
I've had an iPhone for 10 years now and I've never had push notifications on for the 5 email accounts on there. Mind you, my battery isn't fine because the phone gets used a lot and that's what kills batteries quick.
You are a unique/minority case. The vast majority of the population that uses emails prefers notification for important mails.
Do you have a source for that?
I’ll just leave you this post on battery drain from push notifications.
Push notifications don't really affect battery that much to be noticeable, and even if they did that's only one of many reasons why native apps are better.
As a user I want a native app. Hey (or any dev really) should be able to write software for a platform without having to pay tax, maybe they pay for app store distribution or review or submission or something (developer account?), but they shouldn't have to do profit sharing.
I understand the value of having a curated store, I understand the value of locking down the OS. If you're going to do that though - you shouldn't be able to tap all profits going through it.
Imagine if macOS only ran applications from the macOS app store and took a cut of everything. Imagine if they forced Safari only on macOS and took a cut of applications there too. It's not a perfect analogy because most apps on desktop are web apps and not native and the history is more of an open system, but there's something wrong with this kind of rent-seeking. It's counter to their brand, it's hostile, and I'd argue it's likely to make them focus on the wrong things.
It should be single digit.
It’s so common there’s a term for it.
Also keep in mind that just the credit card processing, which Apple absorbs the cost of can be ~3% + $0.25
Because it's anti-competitive (Supreme Court agrees...). It's not apple's responsibility to help me safeguard my credit card data.
I don’t know what youre referring too.
In my experience, Windows owned me. I spent far more time (and money) dealing with malware and low quality hardware running windows than I ever have with the Apple devices I have used. The amortized cost of an Apple device is far lower than equivalent Windows (or Androids), if you include time and stress and probably money too since my family uses iPhones and iPads and MacBook Airs for 5+ years.
I love my iphone 7 and my macbook air from 2013--no doubt, they are very good. But I could throw my windows pc in the garbage and rebuy it a couple of times over for the cost of comparable hardware from apple, and I'm just not having the problems you are describing. This is like 6 year old computer that was about $1,300 in parts. It's like, just some asus motherboard with mismatched ram and a video card.... and it works fine. My mom has a 10 year old windows computer that just keeps on spreadsheeting and e-mailing for her... just fine. I just don't understand.
I've also had apple hardware that has issues. The notion that it is issue free is just not true.
Because I have relatives that click on every link they come across. News websites, especially foreign language are full of links to malware.
Solution is to give them a $400 iPad Mini, $900 MacBook Air, and now there’s even a $400 iPhone SE. There is no comparable laptop to a $900 MacBook Air in fit and finish. iPhones and iPads also last many more years than Android counterparts. I can’t even count on androids to get timely updates (I know, I tried out Nexus and Nexus 4 or whatever back in the day.). I’m still using an iPhone 6S Plus, and there are iPhone 5S and 6 floating around for the elders to use also.
There is no alternative to an iPad. And it’s not expensive, and lasts years and years. And Windows machines are designed to have poor hardware. The consumer level HP/Dell/Lenovo is designed to sell at such low prices that they have to pre install malware that you then have to spend time to get rid of after buying it. I’m not interested in that.
Or get them a Chromebook and teach them the basics of Sheets and Docs. Check in when the laptop dies, shit you could have a backup one to swap out to and still spend probably 50% of what you would on the Windows PC, 20% on the Macbook.
And then how do they FaceTime people from a Chromebook? With one of the 20 video chat apps that Google releases every year? I’m not interested in teaching them what’s new and what’s not. I have 80 year olds who don’t know English setup on FaceTime since iPad minis came out 7 years ago or whatever, and they know the ins and out of iOS. They’ve never had to be taught about a new app.
I originally did try Android tablets, and google couldn’t get their shit together with Hangouts video or Google video chat or whatever other ones, and I wasn’t going to waste my time being their Beta tester.
I also have better alternatives than figuring out what Windows LTSC is, where to buy it, and installing software. I can just get a MacBook Air for just as cheap, and tell my relatives to go to the Apple store when they have a problem. I installed a content blocker, and don’t even have to check in every quarter.
You can have 10. You can have... 10!
Enjoy your chrome book while mountain biking! Don't feel like carrying it back down the mountain? Drop it off a cliff, pull #2 out of your bag
Enjoy your chrome book while water skiing! It's not water proof, but who gives a shit?! Throw that baby in the lake.
At least since then, everyone has been pursuing that line of thought. Just some at times are particularly successful.
There are relatively few apps by revenue that people pay for. Most revenue comes from in app payments from free to play games and subscriptions that are cross platform.
AirPods are Bluetooth headphones that work like any other headphones on Android.
Even movies you buy on iTunes can be transferred between iTunes, Google Play Movies, Amazon prime movies, etc. through Movies Anywhere. Only certain studios participate but that’s not Apple’s fault.