Apple Threatens to Remove Email App 'Hey' From App Store Over Lack of In-App Subscription Option [Updated]

[jlc1978]

Apple is going to get destroyed by anti trust regulators.

Be careful what you wish for. Apple will no doubt find ways to recoup lost revenue, such as no longer offering free hosting of apps; regardless of their price. Or up developer fees. No longer discounting years 2 plus.

Lowering fees, of course, doesn't mean lower prices just a shift of revenue from Apple to others.

Of course, other companies will ultimately face the same reduction. Can Kobi survive with less than 30%? Spotify forced to pay more to rights holders and musicians? Ultimately only diversified companies with revenue streams that can make up for smaller margin services will survive.

In the end, the consumer could be worse off.

Swords cut both ways...

 

[senttoschool]

Apples terms are clear - digital goods incur a charge. Physical goods do not. Hence why you can buy a pair of shoes or a book but not a kindle book. This is why Uber/ Lyft don’t incur a charge - the payment is for a physical service.

No it's not clear. It's intentionally obscure.

In addition, Apple does these "invite only" programs where some Apps don't have to pay the 30%. https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/2...e-video-ios-app-store-cut-exempt-program-deal

And who gets invited? Amazon. And a few other small potatoes to make it seem like this isn't a program exclusively for Amazon.

 

[Rogifan]

Actually, you are saying that they are owed a consistent and non-arbitrary policy. They are not. As the Peoplesoft case showed, one cannot talk about a monopoly without correctly defining the market. The market in question is (at a minimum) the mobile phone market, and Apple has no where near a monopoly in it (under 50% in the U.S., under 25% in most other places).

You also look at this exclusively from the perspective of the developer, and ignore the harm to the consumer experience of being forced to deal with a million different approaches to purchasing services, and consumer unfriendly policies limiting on how many devices I can use the service for the same price.

Developers have every right to decide that they do not want to play in Apple’s sandbox. If enough of them make that decision, Apple would be forced to change. Consumers can also decide they want a less restrictive ecosystem. They can move to one of the many perfectly viable Android phones.

Apple’s ecosystem has a set of trade-offs that many of us like. Clearly not everyone (or even a majority) hence their market share is where it is. However, they those that prefer it (like me), make up a profitable enough segment that they do fine. Stop trying to argue that your view of how things should be is the only one that should be allowed. If Apple’s choices do not work for you, leave the ecosystem and live with a different set of trade-offs. Do not ruin what many of prefer.

OK tell me what this developer did that they deserve to be removed from the App Store? Where in the App Store policies or review guidelines does it reference “consumer” apps and the requirement for them to included IAP? Saying that Apple’s App Store policies shouldn’t be arbitrary and should be consistently enforced is not saying anybody deserves special treatment.

 

[TVOR]

The app Uber doesn't work if it can't sell its ride-hailing service. In fact, Uber and Lyft are selling subscription ride-hailing services.

In addition, Spotify is a real service. Spotify's music doesn't stream from Apple's servers. Spotify has real human beings producing real sounds. Spotify has a huge offline component to its business.
[automerge]1592403052[/automerge]

Both Uber and Lyft now sell subscriptions.

I'm sorry...what exactly is it you think that Spotify creates? In terms of its own content I mean? I haven't checked them out in the last year but as far as I know...they are a streaming music platform that pays pathetic royalty rates...

In fact, according to https://www.dittomusic.com/blog/how-much-do-music-streaming-services-pay-musicians Apple pay almost double compared to Spotify. So Apple is clearly better for the Artists...but I guess that doesn't matter as they are anti-consumer...

 

[jlc1978]

Yes, but the problem here is that Apple doesn’t allow that.

You HAVE to use their App Store to get your software on your customer’s devices. There is literally no alternative.

Android

 

[senttoschool]

Be careful what you wish for. Apple will no doubt find ways to recoup lost revenue, such as no longer offering free hosting of apps; regardless of their price. Or up developer fees. No longer discounting years 2 plus.

Lowering fees, of course, doesn't mean lower prices just a shift of revenue from Apple to others.

Of course, other companies will ultimately face the same reduction. Can Kobi survive with less than 30%? Spotify forced to pay more to rights holders and musicians? Ultimately only diversified companies with revenue streams that can make up for smaller margin services will survive.

In the end, the consumer could be worse off.

Swords cut both ways...

App hosting fees? You mean bandwidth to download apps? That's peanuts. You can get a host that will give you unlimited bandwidth for $5/month.

 

[incoherent_1]

Hopefully they announce a “modernized” App Store policy during the Keynote. This craziness with 15-30% in perpetuity is ridiculous — I love Apple and yes it deserves a cut to cover platform costs, but let’s apply some sanity and logic to the terms.

 

[jlc1978]

Is it? The only valuations I've found were publicity stunts (i.e. they sold one 100 billionth of their company for a dollar to get a $100B valuation).

I totally recognise that they're a substantial company but I couldn't find any realistic valuation for them.

We tried Basecamp but were not impressed.

 

[Rogifan]

Selling real services is not covered by the same rules as selling app content or functionality.

I guarantee you if Apple execs thought the company could get away with taking a cut of Uber and Lyft transactions they would. Heck Eddy Cue once said Uber wouldn’t exist if not for the App Store.

 

[jlc1978]

App hosting fees? You mean bandwidth to download apps? That's peanuts. You can get a host that will give you unlimited bandwidth for $5/month.

Try pushing through terabytes to millions of users at once and see what that $5 unlimited gets you.

 

[boss.king]

First paragraph...I am still using a 2009 Mac Pro running OS 10.11. There are plenty of things that the new versions of the OS could bring to me, but I can't update beyond 10.11 with this hardware. I do still get security updates from time to time though. But what you are talking about is Apple obsoleting hardware overnight with the inclusion of an App Store for Mac. That would only happen in a new OS version. So if you continued running the older OS you would still be able to load apps as you do now. And chances are you could still be running a functional computer that is capable of earning you money over 10 years later. So maybe not "multi-decade"...but certainly not overnight either.

But why should I be forced to run an older OS when they could just not ruin the new one?

Second paragraph...you see that is a fundamental disagreement from me. If I run a business and supply a product or service, it is absolutely my basic human right to decide, for no reason other than I am bored if I so choose, to no longer work on the business (or specific product). To suggest that it is OK to criticise somebody who no longer wants to do a particular job is bordering on promoting servitude! And that's really NOT OK!

If I pay you for an app or service, I expect it to continue to work. Maybe not forever, but for a reasonable period of time (relative to the price)

Third paragraph...I will admit that I may be missing something here but you say "Not worth the time" to put something in the app store. But isn't that a really simple process? It's not like the app needs to be redeveloped or recompiled or anything is it? Surely it's just...sign up...set up Dev account...upload to App Store...profit? If people are making money from the App Store (albeit at a reduced rate), then how is putting your product in a global marketplace and potentially getting more sales not worth the effort? Maybe a Dev can weigh in here about how long and/or complicated the process to get accepted as a Dev is and how complex it is to upload an App to the App Store. It certainly seems like an awful lot of complaining over having to do extra work when they are advocating setting up their own website and marketing and promoting that website as being the "easy" alternative!!

If that were the case then why isn't every piece of Mac software already in the App Store? Answer: because even if it were as easy as a one-click solution, Apple wouldn't allow some of the functionality. I don't want someone at Apple deciding what I'm allowed and not allowed to run on my computer. And their rules can change at the drop of a hat - what is okay today may not be okay tomorrow. I can live with that on my phone, but it's not good enough for a computer.

Fourth paragraph...please...just answer me this...how does changing from installing an app from a Dev's website to installing from the App Store turn a computer into a "locked-down media consumption device"??? So if I install Adobe CC from their website...I have a powerful content creation machine...but if I install it from the App Store I can't create content with Adobe CC...I can only consume it? Come on...you must realise that doesn't make sense!! I respect that you have dozens of little apps from random developers, and perhaps your workflow would be impossible without them, but if they are "little" apps from "random" developers then the Mac community at large probably will not lose anything! What about the dropping of 32 bit apps? That probably had a similar effect...as did the dropping of 8 bit apps back in the annals of time...but progress needs to happen. You cannot support platforms and technologies for ever...and I am sure that most people realise that. But it is a problem when the same EFFECT happens for a different reason because........Apple is a greedy corporation?? I personally prefer to focus on the effect rather than the cause...but YMMV...

Yes, I lost some apps when they dropped 32 bit support. I wasn't happy about it but at least those were years-old by that point. I don't expect everything to last forever, but I do expect have a reasonable level of control over how I use my computer. Everything from a controlled app store doesn't tick that box for me. And honestly, I don't really care whether Mac users at large are happy with it or not, I wouldn't be. Like I said before, general consumer happiness doesn't power my computer.

Final paragraph...I am not complaining that people have opinions. I am glad that they do. I am merely pointing out that I think people are wrong. And looking at the numbers of posts on this particular thread, there are far more people calling out the evil Apple than supporting them. So I am in a minority here and I am totally OK with that. I am simply sharing my opinion...and as you can see, I have no issue with taking the time to reply to somebody's thoughts and opinions in depth. I don't summarily dismiss them. Equally I don't agree with them (in this case). But you, along with a couple of others, seem to be insinuating that my kind aren't welcome here (words my own...not implying that anybody has actually said that!!). And, again, anybody is totally entitled to that opinion if they have it. But I have as much right to post my views (as long as they aren't personally offensive or hateful or break forum rules) as anybody else, however oppositional they are.

You absolutely are complaining about people having opinions, but if you don't see it that way then there's really no need to go any further with that. Either way, whether we're telling you to go away or not, you still have the choice to stay (see how that works).

 

[insomniac86]

I’ve noticed many developers charge 30% MORE on their IAP subscriptions compared to what they offer on their own hosted website. This allows them to keep the money that they would otherwise pay Apple.

Customers should shop around and would be aware that subscriptions cost more via the App Store. If they don’t and they buy it anyway, we’ll what’s the problem?

I think this developer is causing a scene to get their 15 minutes of fame.
For $100 a year I can get an Office 365 subscription with a custom domain, 1TB of storage and the entire Microsoft Office suite.
The guys an idiot.

 

[TVOR]

I can see Apple taking a cut for apps that run on their OS and their App Store -- but 30% feels really steep.

Remember, this drives up prices for US, the buyers of those apps. Every developer who gets nearly a third of their app income skimmed by Apple has to either raise their prices, go to pricy subscriptions, or just cut back on development.

This is simply NOT true! If you sign up as a Dev you know what you will get. So you do your due diligence and work out if you can survive/earn what you want on your projected sales at the rate given when you signed up. If you aren't making enough sales then your projections were wrong...you can't blame the platform for your App not selling. And if you say that you need to have a low price in order to sell...well...maybe your app wasn't that great...sorry...

 

[senttoschool]

I'm sorry...what exactly is it you think that Spotify creates? In terms of its own content I mean? I haven't checked them out in the last year but as far as I know...they are a streaming music platform that pays pathetic royalty rates...

In fact, according to https://www.dittomusic.com/blog/how-much-do-music-streaming-services-pay-musicians Apple pay almost double compared to Spotify. So Apple is clearly better for the Artists...but I guess that doesn't matter as they are anti-consumer...

Spotify makes a ton of creations tools for artists and podcasters.

You're not making any arguments in this post - just merely trying to distract from the facts.

 

[Rogifan]

Apples terms are clear - digital goods incur a charge. Physical goods do not. Hence why you can buy a pair of shoes or a book but not a kindle book. This is why Uber/ Lyft don’t incur a charge - the payment is for a physical service.

This is true but it’s completely arbitrary. Of course if I buy clothing via the Kohl’s app it doesn’t make sense that Apple should get a cut of that transaction. But Uber and Lyft? That’s not so clear. One could argue those two companies owe their success/are more dependent on iOS/App Store than Spotify or Netflix. And if Apple could get away with taking a cut of those transactions it would.

 

[usagora]

Imagine Walmart was the only store and you had to pay 30% to sell your items or not have them available at all. Thats the issue here, it's not like you can distribute the app outside the App Store.

Actually, it's not the issue here because Apple's devices aren't the only platform developers can develop for.

 

[senttoschool]

Try pushing through terabytes to millions of users at once and see what that $5 unlimited gets you.

I'm a software engineer. I know all about servers and bandwidth. The $5 is just an exaggeration (but it's not too far off for most apps).

Bandwidth is cheap as hell. The cost to download or upload something is minuscule when compared to 30%. This is now especially true with CDNs and serverless functions that can scale to "infinite" instantly and scale down to zero when it's not in use.

In addition, if Apple doesn't want to host your app, I will create a scalable service today to help apps host their app downloads updates. No developer would create its own app hosting solution. They'll just use one from someone else.

99.99% of developers would prefer to pay app hosting fees than to pay 30% of their revenue to Apple.

Don't worry about app hosting. It's nothing and it's easily replaceable.

 

[senttoschool]

Actually, it's not the issue here because Apple's devices aren't the only platform developers can develop for.

The other choice, another big tech company charging the same 30%.

Both Apple and Google need to answer to anti-trust laws and they will.

 

[TVOR]

But why should I be forced to run an older OS when they could just not ruin the new one?

Because it is literally THEIR product to do with as they wish. You aren't forced to run anything. Update to a new computer. Move to Windows. Or Linux. What you want is to have your Mac and be able to dictate how new software/platforms are developed based on your wants. This isn't Burger King...pretty sure Apple has never said "You want it your way...you got it!"

If I pay you for an app or service, I expect it to continue to work. Maybe not forever, but for a reasonable period of time (relative to the price)

And it will continue to work. If I wrote an app and stopped developing today...closed down my business...the app doesn't magically stop working the day I shut up shop. It will continue working until something else changes (OS update, security updates etc.) in which case, you are expecting me to continue to provide support for something that I no longer wish to because if somebody else's software changes mine may no longer work. Tell me, if you worked a job and then resigned, how would you feel if you were forced to continue working for that company that you no longer wanted to work for because of some perceived duty that they felt you owed them?

If that were the case then why isn't every piece of Mac software already in the App Store? Answer: because even if it were as easy as a one-click solution, Apple wouldn't allow some of the functionality. I don't want someone at Apple deciding what I'm allowed and not allowed to run on my computer. And their rules can change at the drop of a hat - what is okay today may not be okay tomorrow. I can live with that on my phone, but it's not good enough for a computer.

If you are a Dev commenting on the sign up process then fair enough...I get the impression that you aren't! Because you go on to talk about how you don't want Apple controlling what you use on your computer...which is nothing to do with my point!!

Yes, I lost some apps when they dropped 32 bit support. I wasn't happy about it but at least those were years-old by that point. I don't expect everything to last forever, but I do expect have a reasonable level of control over how I use my computer. Everything from a controlled app store doesn't tick that box for me. And honestly, I don't really care whether Mac users at large are happy with it or not, I wouldn't be. Like I said before, general consumer happiness doesn't power my computer.

Sure...and fair enough. In which case, I suggest you start looking at alternatives now because, like others have said, I believe that will be an inevitable step that Apple will take in the future.

You absolutely are complaining about people having opinions, but if you don't see it that way then there's really no need to go any further with that. Either way, whether we're telling you to go away or not, you still have the choice to stay (see how that works).

Please, I am genuinely curious, can you quote one place where I have said that people aren't entitled to their opinions...because if you can, I will apologise. I have only complained that people are only concerned about their needs (understandable) and then feel the right to demand that those needs are met (not understandable in my opinion and that is what I have been complaining about...not the having of the opinion itself).

And you're right, I do have the choice to stay, and I will exercise that right! I enjoy the debate! Equally, those who are not happy with the Apple experience (either as consumers or Devs) also have the right to leave the platform...will they do so or simply continue to complain about the experience while doing nothing about it?

 

[Victor Mortimer]

Ugh. If this crap keeps up, I'm going to end up with a f*ing Android.

It's MY iPhone, not Apple's. They need to allow alternative app stores and sideloaded apps. And if they don't, the EU needs to force them to do it or boot them out of the entire European market. That would hopefully be enough of a penalty that they'd open up.

I'd love it if the US government would fix this garbage, but they're too in the pocket of business to do anything.

And I don't care AT ALL about some stupid email app, but it's insane that Apple can tell me what I can install on MY phone.

 

[JetBlack7]

Bitch at Hey, not Apple. It wasn’t Apple’s decision to charge you $100/yr. The developer sets that price.

How can you not know that?

By not proof reading what I wrote. Was thinking about Hey and read Apple at the same time. My bad.

 

[Abazigal]

Ugh. If this crap keeps up, I'm going to end up with a f*ing Android.

It's MY iPhone, not Apple's. They need to allow alternative app stores and sideloaded apps. And if they don't, the EU needs to force them to do it or boot them out of the entire European market. That would hopefully be enough of a penalty that they'd open up.

I'd love it if the US government would fix this garbage, but they're too in the pocket of business to do anything.

And I don't care AT ALL about some stupid email app, but it's insane that Apple can tell me what I can install on MY phone.

You own the physical phone but Apple still controls the software running on it, as stated in the terms and conditions you likely clicked right past when you first set your phone up.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Yea, this is a very bad look for Apple. And it's very close to the kind of anti-competitive abuse that Spotify is complaining about.

 

[boss.king]

Because it is literally THEIR product to do with as they wish. You aren't forced to run anything. Update to a new computer. Move to Windows. Or Linux. What you want is to have your Mac and be able to dictate how new software/platforms are developed based on your wants. This isn't Burger King...pretty sure Apple has never said "You want it your way...you got it!"

No one has ever accused Apple of doing things exactly how the customer wants it. But there's a difference between that and being user-hostile.

And it will continue to work. If I wrote an app and stopped developing today...closed down my business...the app doesn't magically stop working the day I shut up shop. It will continue working until something else changes (OS update, security updates etc.) in which case, you are expecting me to continue to provide support for something that I no longer wish to because if somebody else's software changes mine may no longer work. Tell me, if you worked a job and then resigned, how would you feel if you were forced to continue working for that company that you no longer wanted to work for because of some perceived duty that they felt you owed them?

Only if your app didn't rely on any sort of remote anything, which is becoming increasingly rare. A calculator could keep working forever, an email client probably wouldn't.

If you are a Dev commenting on the sign up process then fair enough...I get the impression that you aren't! Because you go on to talk about how you don't want Apple controlling what you use on your computer...which is nothing to do with my point!!

I know, if I limited my opinion to the scope of your argument then we'd both end up being wrong. I'm explaining to you why this situation is not the ideal fairytale world you're making it out to be.

Sure...and fair enough. In which case, I suggest you start looking at alternatives now because, like others have said, I believe that will be an inevitable step that Apple will take in the future.

And, like I said, when that day comes I'll walk away. I think I was pretty clear on that. I know exactly where I'd go because there isn't exactly a huge range of commercially viable options to pick from.

Please, I am genuinely curious, can you quote one place where I have said that people aren't entitled to their opinions...because if you can, I will apologise. I have only complained that people are only concerned about their needs (understandable) and then feel the right to demand that those needs are met (not understandable in my opinion and that is what I have been complaining about...not the having of the opinion itself).

And you're right, I do have the choice to stay, and I will exercise that right! I enjoy the debate! Equally, those who are not happy with the Apple experience (either as consumers or Devs) also have the right to leave the platform...will they do so or simply continue to complain about the experience while doing nothing about it?

Complaining isn't just saying people aren't entitled to their opinions, it can be as simple as general whining. Here are a couple of examples:

"Seriously...just move to Windows/Android already! Nobody should have a right to tell Apple how to run their business! If they want to commit commercial seppuku by making these kinds of decisions...then let them! Why do "consumers" feel entitled to tell a company that they have to make the product/service that THEY want...not what the company wants. I don't walk in to Burger King, ask for a Big Mac, get told that they don't make Big Macs and then kick off complaining that BK not making Big Macs is invading my consumer "safe space"...FFS!"

"I agree, you have a right to expect whatever you want, but that's not what I get worked up over. What I get worked up over is the complaining when those expectations aren't met. Especially when everybody is complaining that THEIR expectations haven't been met without considering that there are many other people who have very different needs or desires. Blatant consumerism only serves to amplify the already cancerous effects of social media in making everybody believe that their views are actually important when looked at on anything other than their own personal microcosm."

I feel like this exchange has reached its conclusion, so respond if you want but I probably won't anymore.

 

[Rob_2811]

How does that make any sense? Apple is paying the rent to be at those malls - and likely more than other stores due to the prime location.

Apple use every tax avoidance scheme in the book. The idea that they are more than happy to pay their way is laughable

Fact Sheet: Apple and Tax Avoidance

Apple is the most valuable public company of all time with a market value of more than $800 billion. Last year, it cleared $45.7 billion[iii] in profits after taxes, making it the most profitable company in the Fortune 500 for the third straight year.

itep.org