If you didn't know they dictated what apps could be installed that when you bought the computer then I'd say you have a point.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Threatens to Remove Email App 'Hey' From App Store Over Lack of In-App Subscription Option [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I actually agree with Apple. Devs can't expect to market their apps on apples platforms for free, expect Apple to pay for all the infrastructure and not be willing to share their profit. Go apple. Hey should be named Bye instead.
Yes I know that I live in it.
Again I will reiterate, Apple uses every tax avoidance scheme they possibly can. The idea that they are more than happy to pay their way is hilarious...
- Between 2008 and 2015, Apple earned $305 billion before taxes, and paid a foreign tax rate of only 5.8%during this time.[vii]
- Apple was able to achieve this low foreign rate by shifting a large portion of its profits into its three Irish subsidiaries.[viii]
- A Senate investigation in 2013 found that two of Apple’s Irish subsidiaries were structured so that, for tax purposes, they weren’t “residents” of either Ireland or the U.S., allowing them to pay almost nothing to either country.[ix]
They don't. It costs money to register as a developer. The issue is Apple insisting on charging a flat 30% on top of that regardless of how much or how little value and support they actually provide. I can totally get onboard with Apple taking a cut, but 30% seems steep in instances where they do nothing but host the app in the store.
Last edited:
see post #422 forthe best I’ve read about the 30% seems steep
Apple Threatens to Remove Email App 'Hey' From App Store Over Lack of In-App Subscription Option [Updated]
Incidentally, Neil Cybart (of AboveAvalon) will be addressing this tomorrow, and I will see if I can chime in with additional information with regards to this. However, in a much earlier article, he estimates that the App Store has a 10% margin. It may still seem like a respectable amount, but...
forums.macrumors.com
So you’re against reader apps then? Netflix, Spotify, Amazon etc. should all have to share their profits with Apple?
see post #422 forthe best I’ve read about the 30% seems steep
Apple Threatens to Remove Email App 'Hey' From App Store Over Lack of In-App Subscription Option [Updated]
Incidentally, Neil Cybart (of AboveAvalon) will be addressing this tomorrow, and I will see if I can chime in with additional information with regards to this. However, in a much earlier article, he estimates that the App Store has a 10% margin. It may still seem like a respectable amount, but...
One of the most damning lines from that post is "70% of something is better than 100% of nothing." You could swap that number with anything and it would still be true. 1% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Would that make it okay for Apple to take a 99% cut for hosting an app in the store? The devs would still be making money.
I might feel differently if there was an option to take on almost all of the "responsibilities" Apple handles for that 30% cut in exchange for a reduced fee, but the fact is that unless you're a Netflix or a Spotify, you have no choice.
If I offered to build you a house and wash your car for a hundred grand, would you be taken aback if I said washing your car would still cost a hundred grand even if I didn't build you a house first? It's a crude analogy but I think it gets my point across.
That 30% cut might be fine if you're a smaller dev who just wants to write an app and start selling it, but if you're an established service business where most of your expenses are things Apple doesn't help with, that cut seems a lot less fair (especially when you see how much Apple is raking in quarter after quarter).
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be difficult or **** on anyone's opinions, I just don't see how the current setup is fair (or rather, why developers shouldn't be complaining about it).
Last edited:
While I understand that you and others think 30% is too much, which of course is a totally subjective thing, the reality is Apple never promised to build developers a house. It's one thing to promise x+y for price z and then renege and only deliver y; it's quite another to promise x for price z and then deliver x as agreed upon.
While Microsoft 365 is a formidable and dominant player, Basecamp isn't unknown in the enterprise market and as Slack proved, a good product can carve a marketshare.
If any, small companies are probably better off with Microsoft 365 as it bundles many functionalities into a single subscription. Larger companies have the budget and IT to justify more diverse set of subscriptions.
And tax avoidance is totally legal...what's your point? They may not be "happy" to pay their way in terms of rents in malls...but they do it because of the benefits they have from being in that high-traffic area. That's kinda the point that I and many others have been making here.
Devs don't need to be happy about it...but it's a cost of doing business...in exactly the same way as the cost of renting a store...or insurance...or accountancy fees...or a whole load of other things. Do I think it's fair that my accountant charges thousands per year? Actually I do because they save me a fortune...but others with a different business model might not have the same opinion.
The value is different for everybody, but the principle of having "business overheads" is universal. And it's not like it's a surprise any more. Every Dev should know what they are getting in to...especially if they are trying to get around something that they know that Apple takes quite a hard line on. They (the Devs of this app) poked the bear doing something like this...it's not like it wouldn't have been totally obvious what would happen if they tried to circumvent these policies...whether or not you (or they) think they are fair isn't really relevant!
EDIT: Didn't see the first line of your reply...touché...I had assumed that you used the word "mall" because you were one of our American friends...but fair enough if you're not...I retract my "outside of the USA" part.
Last edited:
It seems pretty clear what they did, they refused to offer an in-app purchase option for their product. Not sure that "deserve" is the right word, however. You talk as though there is an inherent right to be able to distribute through Apple's market and further that everyone should be able to install applications without even going through the App Store. Here we fundamentally disagree. Those people who want that experience have the option to do whatever they want with a device, can purchase one of the many Android devices.
Let me ask you two questions, just to clarify your position: Is Apple allowed to change or elaborate on their policies? If they are, would you be fine with it if they made a clear statement that products targeting consumers required in-app purchase?
If not, it does not really matter.
I think it is Apple's market and they should be able to grant or deny access completely arbitrarily. Apple controls a very small percentage of the worldwide mobile phone market. It may be a very profitable segment, but that does not make it a monopoly. You have every right to want what you want and even to argue that it would benefit Apple and/or some of their customers. The two biggest issues I have are:
- Arguing that it is a clear benefit to consumers, when in reality it mostly benefits developers and harms consumers in many ways.
- Arguing that, despite there being a robust mobile phone market of which Apple is only a small part, the government should step in and force Apple to adopt your position.
You know what...if you are referring to general a**holery when you said complaining about opinions then I will absolutely put my hands up to that! I still maintain that I wasn't complaining about people HAVING opinions...but rather about what they meant that they felt entitled to demand...but if that was your definition then it's a fair cop!!
As for your other points, while I disagree in varying degrees with them, you have been nothing but respectful and have always backed up your point of view so I have nothing but respect for that! While I don't expect the exchange to continue, I did want to reply to 'fess up as I said I would when you took the time to actually back up calling me out!! And to say that I respect your defence of your position in a polite and courteous way. Chapeau good Sir!
Your absurd logic is like complaining that Apple won't let you download child porn because it prohibits such apps on the App Store. Apple isn't forcing you to do anything, and has every right to set policies for its own store, whether they be for competitive, legal, or moral reasons.
And I hate to break it to you, but your dream of alternative app stores and sideloaded apps is unlikely to come true, and your post supports why that should never happen: There is no unfair competition or harm to consumers because those who don't like it can instead go "with a f*ing Android."
Up front I will say I absolutely hate the SaaS model... though I am softening to it somewhat. I am not sure this email client is just a client though. It has a network backend, etc. that you are also renting. Apple's own guidelines allow an exception for cloud storage services, which, arguably an email server is.
OTOH although they provided a list of apps that didn't comply and were still allowed, the big one I can think of, Outlook 365 (and other Office 365 apps) actually implemented Apple's IAP to subscribe to Office 365. Which includes cloud storage and access to the apps, including an email client. (Though the apps are completely free if used on a small screen device - but you also don't need a 365 account).
I guess for me the difference is, is the app just a front end to a server backend that is doing the processing, or is the app doing the processing and its just a regular email server? Obviously its doing some processing in writing and receiving emails, though no different than spotify or netflix allowing you to create playlists/watchlists and interact with their service.
If its purely a web email service and their backend is doing their fancy filtering, etc. rather than the actual client, it probably shouldnt need to offer IAP. On the other hand if the client is doing the processing than I think it should need the IAP.
All that said, if all the main processing is truly done on the server, they should really just provide a webapp to access their service.
OTOH although they provided a list of apps that didn't comply and were still allowed, the big one I can think of, Outlook 365 (and other Office 365 apps) actually implemented Apple's IAP to subscribe to Office 365. Which includes cloud storage and access to the apps, including an email client. (Though the apps are completely free if used on a small screen device - but you also don't need a 365 account).
I guess for me the difference is, is the app just a front end to a server backend that is doing the processing, or is the app doing the processing and its just a regular email server? Obviously its doing some processing in writing and receiving emails, though no different than spotify or netflix allowing you to create playlists/watchlists and interact with their service.
If its purely a web email service and their backend is doing their fancy filtering, etc. rather than the actual client, it probably shouldnt need to offer IAP. On the other hand if the client is doing the processing than I think it should need the IAP.
All that said, if all the main processing is truly done on the server, they should really just provide a webapp to access their service.
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
Yes Apple, like you and every other person and company on the planet, uses every tax avoidance scheme available to them. They've never denied that.
And spare us the comeback that you voluntarily pay as much tax as possible.
Apparently that wasn't as simple as I thought. The point I'm trying to make is that Apple offers developers A+B+C for price X (30% of revenue). For smaller devs, that works out to be a good deal. When a larger company already has an implementation of B+C, they only need A from Apple but are stuck paying the full price with no recourse (and let's be honest, if a service business doesn't have an iPhone app these days they will suffer badly, so let's not pretend that that's somehow a realistic option).
All I'm saying is that Apple might able to consider offering a more modular list of services for smaller splits of the revenue (i.e. A costs 12%, B costs 15%, C costs 10%). They could still make A+B+C more appealing to smaller devs buy selling the bundle at 30%, but for larger devs they'd get less pushback taking 12% for A instead of the full 30%.
Not about app hosting fees. The benefit of the App Store is exposure to over a billion iOS users. It's the one and only place that people search for iOS apps. If Hey was somehow able to let people sideload their app, they'd be spending at least 30% marketing it to reach the same number of users.
[automerge]1592410813[/automerge]
You have no clue how retail works. Manufacturers sell products to WalMart at wholesale for less than they could sell them at retail. They also pay WalMart for shelf space, product placement, and cooperative advertising. That is far more than 30%, but is obvisouly cheaper for manufacturers than opening their own stores, and extends their market reach.
[automerge]1592410914[/automerge]
Finally, someone who gets it.
[automerge]1592411192[/automerge]
Just because an app relies on remote storage, doesn’t mean that it is a "cloud storage" service. By that definition, all apps would be cloud storage services, and therefore reader apps.
Hey is an email service and client, not a cloud storage service.
In case this is still confusing to you, the following are cloud storage services: DropBox, Box, Google Drive, OneDrive.
Last edited:
Every time see/hear this argument over completely unrelated things I laugh. Do you have a job and/or own/run a company? Do you take any tax deductions? No one is forced to take deductions, just as the legislatures are not required to put them in place. Apple has amazing finance people, just as they have great engineers and supply chain managers.
Finally, I am always amused when I hear about people complaining that Company X does not pay "their fair share". My question is who do you think really pays when "Company X" is forced to pay more. It is different for every business, but it is always split among four groups:
- Customers
- Employees
- Suppliers
- Shareholders.
However, none of this matters in this discussion, as it is all unrelated to Apple App Store policies.
Crude isn’t the right word. Completely irrelevant, devoid of any logic, and not at all getting your point across are more accurate.
I disagree, but good job being as rude as possible about it. Maybe my later explanation is more clear though:
Last edited:
Regardless of all that, you can't escape the basic math of it: a skim off the top lowers the profits for developers, and that drives up prices. It's a percentage so the amount of money Apple takes increases even if you sell more units.
Good post - but taxation is not the only way. Developers could be asked to pay upfront for vetting costs - and could pay a fixed rate for number of downloads, etc. That way this would keep the App Store alive... without actually making profit for Apple because someone else had a good idea...
Yes, I understand your point as explained here. The earlier analogy made it sound like a bait and switch. I guess on a smaller scale, this is the same thing as, say, Microsoft Office being one price, whether you want one of the apps or all of them (or use other included services like OneDrive). Would it be nice if they offered people just Word for $15/year vs having to pay for the whole suite for $70/year? Yes, but that's probably never going to happen.
Yesssss...I am aware of the basics of economics. Apple taking a commission lowers the profits for Devs...but so doesn't rent...do does the purchase of a new computer...so does insurance, taxes, and a thousand other things. It doesn't "drive up" prices...it SETS prices. If the commission increased then you could argue that prices have been driven up...but we aren't talking about Apple increasing their commission...rather that it is just too much to start with.
And on your second point, I'm not sure I am understanding you correctly. You say that the money that Apple takes increases as sales increase...you mean the dollar value of what they take...right? Because you do realise that that's how percentages work...they take more money but the Dev also earns more money...a fact that you left out of your closing point.
[automerge]1592412789[/automerge]
You know who else had a good idea...Apple...in creating the iPhone and the App Store...
That's fair, but the difference I see is that I can use a Google Doc or Pages or LibreOffice, and on and on, in place of Office if I don't like Microsoft's price. If I don't like Apple's price, I have no other options for selling my app to iOS users. And yes, there's Android, but that does nothing to address the massive chunk of users I'd miss out on by not having an iOS option.