Apple Introduces Volume App Purchasing for Business

[LowKeyed]

What we have done since the VPP for Ed program was established is create district-owned iTunes accounts for each building/department specifically for these VPP purchases. We only install "district-purchased apps" on "district-owned devices" so we can police the licensing (not easily though *sigh* still waiting for an inexpensive mobile device management solution for that), but it at least guarantees continued district ownership of the licenses.

We thought about this and we have lawyers chewing on the language to confirm our assumptions on the matter, but it appears to be a in conflict with apple TOS to do this.

Excerpt from TOS
"You agree to provide accurate and complete information when you register with, and as you use, the iTunes Service ("iTunes Registration Data"), and you agree to update your iTunes Registration Data to keep it accurate and complete. You agree that Apple may store and use the iTunes Registration Data you provide for use in maintaining and billing fees to your Account."

The use of the word "you" in this portion of the TOS and the use of the words "your primary email" "your birth date" etc. in the appleid creation process seems to indicate that you are not actually able to create a generic accounts for abstract entities but that it must be for an actual individual.

It's been recommended by local sales reps that we do exactly what you are talking about, however no one will go on the record and say its ok to do it.

 

[LowKeyed]

So you can e-mail redemption codes to employees and let them redeem the apps (including, I assume, Lion?) after signing in with their own accounts? Is the app then linked to their personal account? Is there a way that the company can transfer the license to another employee if the first one leaves?

Yes the app (and I assume OS in the case of lion) becomes linked to the account. We have not found a way to transfer the license back to the school/business. I found a post on a support forum where someone alluded to a exception made for a one time transfer being done by iTunes support but I have been unable to find more details or any documentation on the process.

 

[MattInOz]

I'd like to see a master account that could reclaim an app distributed with a voucher. That way the school or business doesn't have to buy apps for specific employees but instead for positions and/or functions. When the master account reclaims an app then it should automatically be removed from the device or computer. In the case of the OS the computer should become locked to all logins except when authorized with the master account's appleid.

If developers are going to produce specific versions for companies then it's even more important that the company would want to be able force delete of company assets.

I wonder if a device could have two iCloud accounts?
One for the institution installed by a profile, and the users personnel one.
Device leaves your control you send a remote wipe, the device rebuilds from only the users iCloud. As the Institutions data is tied to the institutions cloud account the user loose access to all that in one hit.

 

[philmo]

Yes the app (and I assume OS in the case of lion) becomes linked to the account. We have not found a way to transfer the license back to the school/business.

Thanks for the insight.

I suppose for Lion it doesn't really matter; we could buy however many licenses we need, only actually redeem it once and install from the same dmg on all machines, but it sure would be nice if there was a way to handle this problem with other apps.

 

[wackymacky]

Yet again Apple thinks they are doing something akin to miraculous, when really it is rather basic and is they way it should had always been.

Oh well, better late than never.

 

[MacToddB]

Finally.

Now I'd like to see multi-platform (iPhone, iPad, etc.) prices for an app at the same price. A rule, that is. None of this 0.99c for the iPhone version, $2.99 for the iPad.

As a user, I like to buy Universal apps... one price and I can run it on my iPhones and iPads.

As a developer, I recognize that the extra work to run natively (and well) on an iPad probably isn't going to show a return, without a higher price.

As a businessman, I've bitten the bullet and made my apps Universal (and free or $0.99) and hope that customers will appreciate it.

As an aside... When's the last time you wrote a review, thanking a developer for making an app Universal AND keeping the price down? Such positive reinforcement really helps.

 

[M87]

I'd like to buy more volume for my iPhone, I can barely hear anything with these earbuds.

 

[Reach9]

I really hope that with this, we'll be seeing more Business and corporate focused apps on the App Store.

 

[commander.data]

So these customized B2B apps. Do they only appear to the specific volume license business/institution it's being targeted to, appear to all volume license accounts in general, or to the whole app store?

 

[Hawkeye411]

This is fantastic news for my company!

 

[heyitsmecarlos]

They already allow you to install an unlimited number of copies on "all of your Macs" with an AppleID, so if you have like 100 Macs, you can install the apps on all of your computers with one app purchase (already this is the rule). So I don't see the point of this. Apple just wants your money (if you fall for this trap)

yes but i think the rule is that you can only authorize like 5 computers with your apple id... but yes if im wrong (which most likely and hopefully i am ) then yes you are correct and this is just stupid

 

[miografico]

Finally.

Now I'd like to see multi-platform (iPhone, iPad, etc.) prices for an app at the same price. A rule, that is. None of this 0.99c for the iPhone version, $2.99 for the iPad.

This is for business and educational institutions. This doesn't pertain to you as a consumer.

This is not new. Apple created a volume purchasing program for education months ago. Purchasing the apps is only half the problem. The bigger part, especially for state schools who spend tax payer money is who ends up owning the license.

When you buy a bulk package of apps what you get is a list of vouchers you send to which ever users/employees you want. They use a normal unmanaged consumer iTunes/app store account to redeem the app and then it belongs to them. When they quite or get fired the university has to buy the app or distribute another voucher for the replacement employee while the exiting employee keeps all the applications the company or school paid for.

I'm a fan boy and will defend and praise apple for a lot of stuff. But that they haven't even acknowledged this problem is really disappointing and frustrating.

It's actually not as easy as Apple doing it the way you want it to be done. Apple doesn't own the rights to the application. Apple cannot create a third party deal with you to transfer your license to another device owner because Apple doesn't own the application. They own the mechanism for delivering the application to your device and the rights to house or not house the application. You're asking for Apple to make a licensing agreement with you they simply could not do.

Should there be more room for us developers to create third party licensing agreements and use our own systems for deployment for business and education customer - yes, but that's a long way off if it ever comes at all.

I'd like to see a master account that could reclaim an app distributed with a voucher. That way the school or business doesn't have to buy apps for specific employees but instead for positions and/or functions. When the master account reclaims an app then it should automatically be removed from the device or computer. In the case of the OS the computer should become locked to all logins except when authorized with the master account's appleid.

A similar type of system is possible to create for custom applications if you are an enterprise development account holder, but you would only have the ability to manage distribution ad-hoc for applications you either built, or had custom built for your organization.

If you are that worried about the minutia of who what where is using your application - I don't really see how that applies to 99.9% of applications on the public's app store - get an enterprise developer account. If you are interested in that kind of control you're looking at a very tailored application to suit your needs, would be better off going the enterprise route and having someone build the application for you. I would like to know what application you would only want (that's available in the general App Store) available only for a human resources employee, but not for someone at the IT help desk.

Correct me if I am wrong, but for those of us who need the control you are talking about it's because we are rolling our own applications for internal use and thus have the control(s) you described.

 

[Kimbie]

So you buy apps for 100 iphones, how do you distribute them to the users from an enterprise point of view?

Kimbie

 

[miografico]

So you buy apps for 100 iphones, how do you distribute them to the users from an enterprise point of view?

Kimbie

You don't buy per device you buy copies which in turn you get redemption codes for. With your list of redemption codes you can send custom URLs to your device holders where they can in turn download the application.

 

[Kimbie]

You don't buy per device you buy copies which in turn you get redemption codes for. With your list of redemption codes you can send custom URLs to your device holders where they can in turn download the application.

Well that is remarkably sensible, thanks for the info

Kimibe

 

[gnasher729]

Finally.

Now I'd like to see multi-platform (iPhone, iPad, etc.) prices for an app at the same price. A rule, that is. None of this 0.99c for the iPhone version, $2.99 for the iPad.

OK. $2.99 for the iPhone version, $2.99 for the iPad version. Happy now?

 

[flottenheimer]

US only. Say what?
Doh!

 

[miografico]

US only. Say what?
Doh!

I hope they get an international rollout going ASAP myself. We have a very big corporate client outside of the US interested in using the platform for internal applications and this route would save countless hours of frustration trying to get them an enterprise developer account, compiling code with their certificates etc. etc.

The B2B custom applications is what we have been waiting for, and while it's not the perfect distribution model a lot of us who develop for enterprises want - it's a whole hell of a lot better than the previous way of going about things. But, not having international companies supported is a huge PITA out of the gate.

 

[jsiegl]

We thought about this and we have lawyers chewing on the language to confirm our assumptions on the matter, but it appears to be a in conflict with apple TOS to do this.

Excerpt from TOS
"You agree to provide accurate and complete information when you register with, and as you use, the iTunes Service ("iTunes Registration Data"), and you agree to update your iTunes Registration Data to keep it accurate and complete. You agree that Apple may store and use the iTunes Registration Data you provide for use in maintaining and billing fees to your Account."

The use of the word "you" in this portion of the TOS and the use of the words "your primary email" "your birth date" etc. in the appleid creation process seems to indicate that you are not actually able to create a generic accounts for abstract entities but that it must be for an actual individual.

It's been recommended by local sales reps that we do exactly what you are talking about, however no one will go on the record and say its ok to do it.

The VPP has been very confusing for Education, but this is definitely allowed in the TOS, Apple tacked it on Last August when the rolled out the VPP. The relevant section reads as follows:

ii) If You are a commercial enterprise or educational institution, You may download and sync a Product for use by either (a) a single individual on one or more devices You own or control or (b) multiple individuals, on a single shared device You own or control. For example, a single employee may use the Product on both the employee's iPhone and iPad, or multiple students may serially use the Product on a single iPad located at a resource center or library

and later in the TOS:

Solely as an accommodation to you, Apple agrees to permit you to use a single code to sync a Product to multiple devices, up to the number of codes you have purchased (instead of having to redeem a separate code for each license), provided that you meet the following terms:

-You agree to sync no more copies than the number of codes you purchased.
-You agree that you shall be fully responsible for any use of and any loss or harm to Apple or third parties arising from the codes you purchased.
-You agree to keep complete and accurate records of all uses of the codes you purchased

iear.org has a wiki on the VPP that I maintain with some more details and step by step instructions for the EDU program at http://iear.wikispaces.com/Volume+Purchase+Program

 

[gorgeousninja]

Yet again Apple thinks they are doing something akin to miraculous, when really it is rather basic and is they way it should had always been.

Oh well, better late than never.

Okay where is Apple saying they are doing something miraculous, and are any competitors offering a similar system... Or do you just want to moan?

 

[LowKeyed]

This is for business and educational institutions. This doesn't pertain to you as a consumer.

It's actually not as easy as Apple doing it the way you want it to be done. Apple doesn't own the rights to the application. Apple cannot create a third party deal with you to transfer your license to another device owner because Apple doesn't own the application. They own the mechanism for delivering the application to your device and the rights to house or not house the application. You're asking for Apple to make a licensing agreement with you they simply could not do.

Apple is well beyond capable of doing things that are not easy. I don't think any lawyer or developer would describe the iTunes Match program as "easy". Also, I think the application developers would be much more agreeable to this type of thing. Businesses have become used to buying a piece of software that they control. When making the decision to dismiss an employee it has never entered my mind how much software we have invested in them, unless we get some more control over installation and ownership that is gonna become a factor in the process.

Granted most developers give you another avenue to purchase software from them. But what about Lion, Pages, Keynote, FCP, Motion, Aperture, and all of Apple's other great titles. It looks like Apple won't be selling boxed copies soon. They don't need to create a license agreement with a third party to create that kind of functionality with there own titles. I'd be fine if there were an opt-in option for developers to participate. It'd be easy for us to lobby developers to opt-in.

If you are that worried about the minutia of who what where is using your application - I don't really see how that applies to 99.9% of applications on the public's app store - get an enterprise developer account. If you are interested in that kind of control you're looking at a very tailored application to suit your needs, would be better off going the enterprise route and having someone build the application for you. I would like to know what application you would only want (that's available in the general App Store) available only for a human resources employee, but not for someone at the IT help desk.

Correct me if I am wrong, but for those of us who need the control you are talking about it's because we are rolling our own applications for internal use and thus have the control(s) you described.

With the exception of a handful apps everything we use is available in the public app store. Example: We have instructional designers who may move into administrative positions. It would be nice not to buy another copy of FCP for the new designer when someone gets promoted.

The biggest issue for us (State School) is that we are in line to spend large amounts of money on applications that will belong to the employee and not the State. We don't have a massive turnover problem but it's significant enough to create concern. As a taxpayer that is a real problem for me. Does the employee have to claim those purchases as part of the compensation package, do they need to pay income tax on the amount? Etc...

Like i said in an earlier post. We have lawyers looking into it, but i'd rather pay developers and Apple (i'm a share holder ) than the lawyers.

 

[FrizzleFryBen]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

This is the best thing I've heard all year on both accounts. Internal software management will be MUCH more streamlined for me. It will also give me the ability to distro custom apps in ways that finally make sense! Thanks for listening Apple!

 

[miografico]

Okay where is Apple saying they are doing something miraculous, and are any competitors offering a similar system... Or do you just want to moan?

Android has always been far better in this regard and I don't develop for Android either on a commercial level. With Android based devices you can sell your application however you choose. If Google would get their act together with encryption at the OS level, ease of setting up syncing with an Exchange Server (Yes there is honeycomb, but for tablets) they would soon find a lot of enterprises targeting more Android devices. Never understood their stupid reasoning for not trying to capitalize on the open environment they have created and market it to enterprises. Either pure laziness or pure incompetence.

 

[miografico]

Apple is well beyond capable of doing things that are not easy. I don't think any lawyer or developer would describe the iTunes Match program as "easy". Also, I think the application developers would be much more agreeable to this type of thing. Businesses have become used to buying a piece of software that they control. When making the decision to dismiss an employee it has never entered my mind how much software we have invested in them, unless we get some more control over installation and ownership that is gonna become a factor in the process.

Granted most developers give you another avenue to purchase software from them. But what about Lion, Pages, Keynote, FCP, Motion, Aperture, and all of Apple's other great titles. It looks like Apple won't be sailing boxed copies soon. They don't need to create a license agreement with a third party to create that kind of functionality with there own titles. I'd be fine if there were an opt-in option for developers to participate. It'd be easy for us to lobby developers to opt-in.



With the exception of a handful apps everything we use is available in the public app store. Example: We have instructional designers who may move into administrative positions. It would be nice not to buy another copy of FCP for the new designer when someone gets promoted.

The biggest issue for us (State School) is that we are in line to spend large amounts of money on applications that will belong to the employee and not the State. We don't have a massive turnover problem but it's significant enough to create concern. As a taxpayer that is a real problem for me. Does the employee have to claim those purchases as part of the compensation package, do they need to pay income tax on the amount? Etc...

Like i said in an earlier post. We have lawyers looking into it, but i'd rather pay developers and Apple (i'm a share holder ) than the lawyers.

I cannot disagree with your points, your motives and your business needs, but Apple has effectively taken the normal seat licensing that comes along with regular desktop software out of our hands on the mobile level, and now they are beginning to do the same on the desktop level.

On the desktop the employee leaves, the company/institution owns the machine it stays, and the software license remains with the company - as it should. But, nine times out of ten the clients we deal with don't own the phones, tablets or laptops of their employees - they just allow them to coexist in their infrastructure. This seems to be the case with the educational institution you work for.

There to me lies the problem and the only solution I see to that would be an addition to the volume purchasing program to revoke the application privileges for devices that are no longer members of the organization/company. As someone who does this for a living I can respect that as revocation on one device allows for the license to be used on a different device/new employee, but I do not believe Apple even has close to the infrastructure it would take to handle that for their regular business/education consumers who are not enterprise developers themselves/using their own internal applications. We are more than capable of doing this on an internal level with our application we create ourselves because we are able to manage their deployment ourselves. You're in a cumbersome position.

In terms of the general Mac App Store for desktop applications I can only give you my advice as someone who builds software for enterprises and that is stay away from it. It isn't tailored at all to the needs of businesses/education in terms of what is required for purchasing seats of software and you're always going to be better off going straight to the developer in terms of licensing. You are in effect making a license agreement with two parties at once upon purchase, Apple and the development company. Unless of course as in what you mentioned before (FCP) that's directly from Apple to begin with.

The Mac App Store is also one gigantic crapshoot at this time. If they push the issue too hard and slowly start to cut off access to software by other means your school may be a Mac mobile shop, but you won't remain a Mac desktop shop. Love for a company slowly wanes when the cost to do business becomes cost ineffective and the business/institution loses too much control. Even someone who is invested in Apple should realize there is a tipping point for businesses/educational institutions.

You tax question is fairly simple. To even participate in volume purchasing you need a credit card tied to your school. You are in effect purchasing seats and therefore the tax liability and how you would amortize or write off those purchases is all in your favor. You're simply SOL at this time if the person leaving is taking the hardware with them as there is no revocation from afar for third party applications.

These things also should have been ironed out a long time ago with Apple's policies... but hey - what can you do?

 

[Sackvillenb]

Wel... although there are some legal details that could be improved... on the whole this is pretty handy. Apple has been focusing on business customers quite a bit lately... with this, and joint venture, and dedicated business teams in their stores... And that's a good thing. The more people who use Apple the better...