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

[Nuno Lopes]

It's absurd to think the App store doesn't add value and services. It does, whether you think there is value or not.

What value does it add to third party apps or digital services. Pick say, Netflix. Or even that app in question?

Please enumerate.

The truth is that value is because one owns the distribution channel and when that distribution channel has 30% of marketshare and in some regions 50% it becomes a problem. That is all that is to it.

Now I value a single App Store as a user. It makes it simpler to download apps and manage my bills, and Apple focus on security gives me some peace. But would I buy buy the apps I bought or subscribe to the services I have, even if other stores if there were any, yes. Its about the app or digital service not iOS. Would I buy if I had to pay 30% on top of the supplier price for the delivery of the apps and or digital service on the device ... most probably I would change devices faster.

 

[TVOR]

Given that as a developer I have no control over what device my customer purchases, what you just said is a load of rubbish.

Man you really won't let this go will you?! They are only YOUR customer after they make a purchase from you. If they have an iOS device and you don't develop for iOS then they will never be your customer. And if you do develop for iOS they aren't YOUR customer until they purchase from you.

If you make a product, and there are two big stores in town, one (Let's call it "Robot") that will allow you to sell your product in their store for let's say, 5%, and the other (let's call it "Pineapple") which wants to charge you 30%, and you turn down the store that charges 30% because you don't like their policy, if a consumer then walks into Pineapple, you don't have a right to them as a customer. If they only want to shop in Pineapple, and you don't want your product in that store because you don't like their policy, then what right do you have to demand that Pineapple change their policies because otherwise they are preventing you from reaching a customer??

YOU have the choice to accept the terms or not. YOU have the choice to develop for iOS or not. THE CUSTOMER has the choice over what platform to choose. APPLE (sorry..."Pineapple") has the choice to set whatever terms it wants for ITS OWN store. This is a three part problem and no one party in this situation owes any other party - or is owed by any other party - anything. It is nothing more than free will and a free market.

 

[I7guy]

What value does it add to third party apps or digital services. Pick say, Netflix. Or even that app in question?...

To cherry pick some examples where the app store may not add as much value as some of the other thousands of apps where the app store does add value doesn't devalue the ecosystem of the app store and the collective advantage of fairly safe, one stop shop for IOS apps.

For those cherry picked examples, it offers benefits to the consumer, knowing they (the consumer) are downloading a safe, reputable app. I would think these companies would want that. Either way, if the argument is made the app store benefits to the publisher are not as great for some apps and an alternative app store is the answer, Apple still would not want the rules being bent, from an alternative app store.

 

[Suckfest 9001]

If you think that's steep, check out Tempo. It's currently in beta but they're planning to charge $15/month when it launches.

Honestly, as long as they know that this isn't going to be a mainstream service, I don't think the price is all that unreasonable. People drop $50 each on Apple Watch bands they wear a handful of times or subscribe to streaming services they never use, so $8.25 a month for an app you use constantly, every day, suddenly sounds a lot more reasonable, especially if it's offering something you're not finding elsewhere.

I have to say, likening spending money on this to wasting money on apps you never use isn't a very strong argument. The default Mail app is fine for most people. And if it isn't, Spark would be. And they're both completely free for individuals.

 

[boss.king]

I have to say, likening spending money on this to wasting money on apps you never use isn't a very strong argument. The default Mail app is fine for most people. And if it isn't, Spark would be. And they're both completely free for individuals.

I think you missed my point. If people are willing to blow money on things they don't even use, wouldn't it follow that they would also spend a bit on things that would actually be helpful to them? If this app offers something that the others don't, it may very well be worth the money. Similarly, you can get a thousand different Android smartphones that do basically everything the iPhone does, but somehow we all still buy iPhones for much higher prices because it gives us an experience we enjoy more.

At $99, I really don't think it's aimed at the average person. It's for email power-users, people for whom Mail/Gmail/Spark/etc aren't enough. How many of those people are out there, I really can't say, but I don't think they would have built this if they didn't see a market for it.

 

[garylapointe]

The "App Store" on Linux is free. Apple stole this idea from Linux basically (as they were first with this idea)

Are you trying to say that's a normal business model?

 

[MLMcMillion]

If you are able to get developers for $100/year, I cannot imagine why you would care about giving Apple 30%

I think you misunderstood this. They're already paying Apple $100/yr per developer.

 

[heifetz7]

why doesn't basecamp just charge $130 instead of $100 for the ios app? Sure, it is more, but if the user doesn't want to pay more, they can subscribe outside of ios. I think Schiller makes a good point that anything that is distributed through the app store should work w/o having to go outside the phone to subscribe, it is a better user experience.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

To cherry pick some examples where the app store may not add as much value as some of the other thousands of apps where the app store does add value doesn't devalue the ecosystem of the app store and the collective advantage of fairly safe, one stop shop for IOS apps.

I’m not against one stop shop for iOS apps. I’m a customer and I like. It’s one of the things out of many I like in the iOS system.Bill me, say a service fee. Not the people and organizations that add value to the platform.

The question is. How much I would be willing to pay for it.

 

[I7guy]

I’m not against one stop shop for iOS apps. I’m a customer and I like. It’s one of the things out of many I like in the iOS system.Bill me, say a service fee. Not the people and organizations that add value to the platform.

The question is. How much I would be willing to pay for it.

Why do you care how much apple bills netflix, if any. That line of thinking is outside the realm of consumers thoughts. That's between netflix and apple. If netflix declines an app for the app store, that's on Apple...not the posters in this thread. Apple will be left with the mess to clean up.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Why do you care how much apple bills netflix, if any. That line of thinking is outside the realm of consumers thoughts.

And?

 

[kplayaja]

$99/yr to read email tho. Gat damn!

 

[jlc1978]

I’m not against one stop shop for iOS apps. I’m a customer and I like. It’s one of the things out of many I like in the iOS system.Bill me, say a service fee. Not the people and organizations that add value to the platform.

The question is. How much I would be willing to pay for it.

I would wager app sales would drop if there was na added charge. Consumer behavior is odd - $10 is more acceptable than $9 plus $1; even though it is the same in the end.

It's a balance - Apple gets apps and developers get a large user base; Apple gets paid for that and developers get a much larger cut than under the old distribution system; where you had to get a publisher to sell it or DIY and reach a much smaller audience.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I would wager app sales would drop if there was na added charge. Consumer behavior is odd - $10 is more acceptable than $9 plus $1; even though it is the same in the end.

It's a balance - Apple gets apps and developers get a large user base; Apple gets paid for that and developers get a much larger cut than under the old distribution system; where you had to get a publisher to sell it or DIY and reach a much smaller audience.

The old distribution systems is no longer. Today is super easy to deploy Internet payment and billing as well as download and update of your app (Apple Pay, Visa/MasterCard, PayPal ...). It does not cost at all that much.

As usual the cost is in innovation and marketing.The App Store does not change that. It’s more useful to the customer/users to have a one stop shop.

Most app become known not through the App Store highlights but Marketing on social networks, YouTube, outdoors, tech journalists articles and reviews ...

One tech that it’s growing in use is Web Apps. Apple does not support it because it requires zero deployment hence no way to include its 30% shared revenue. This hurts customers .... I prefer native apps, but sometime there isn’t any, and Safari does not help.

You know how much Apple charges for an Apple Pay transaction on the web site? Around .15c. The rest it charges to the bank ... and varies up do 3c as far as I know. This way, way different than 30% revenue charge and happens because of competition in that space. It cannot leverage on its own policy.

I think the only way Apple will change the policy is if forced by EU or US competition commissions. Because devs need access to that 30% to 50% market share that is hold ransom by Apple.

Look, I and my family only use Apple products. We love it. That is not in question as long as the ecosystem keeps on moving forward in quality, not only devices but apps. And even better if it helps foster economical growth to third parties.

But it bugs me being used as the core value of a product in this context ... access to me. After paying so much for the devices:

2xiPad Pros 12.9”, 1xiPad Pro 10.5”, 1xiPad 2018, 2xiPads (supplied by kids school), 1xMacbook Pro 15” 2015, 1xMacbook Pro 16”, 1xApple TV 4K, 1xAirPod Pro, 1x AirPod, 1xiPhone X, 1xPhone 11, 1xiPhone SE (old), 1xiPod, 2xApplw Watch 3 ...

Sorry if I feel that my usage of the App Store is already well payed for ... no need to charge much to anyone else to serve me through these devices!!!! No need to use me as a PRODUCT!

But the business worlds does not work only with needs. But with “can”.

The App Store is a fundamental component of the ecosystem. It’s as valuable to me as the choices it provides in terms of Apps. If it has small number of Apps I would have been long gone a such a committed customer. Heck Windows 10 Phone is no longer partially because it lacked good apps.

It bugs me that some dev cannot put an App on the store because I’m being used as a Product, as leverage for it to force the developer to share 30% of its revenue with Apple. That is why today I have no access to that App! There seams to be no issue with the quality of the App or service itself.

Shiller and co are using us as a Product. I have no doupts about that. Some people might not care, but I do.

Apple CEO Tim Cook Says the Tech Giant Doesn’t Want Your Data

“We treasure your data. We wanna help you keep it private and keep it safe.”

www.google.pt

I hope TC word to customer is worth something.

Cannot be clearer.

 

[jlc1978]

The old distribution systems is no longer. Today is super easy to deploy Internet payment and billing as well as download and update of your app (Apple Pay, Visa/MasterCard, PayPal ...). It does not cost at all that much.

My point is this system is much more beneficial to the developer than the old one. Apple is entitled to make money off of its infrastructure and the services it provides.

As someone who once sold an item under the old way, I'd much prefer Apple that 30% than the old channels' 90+%. I m,ight have actually been able too afford more than a cup of coffee at the end of the day.

As usual the cost is in innovation and marketing.The App Store does not change that. It’s more useful to the customer/users to have a one stop shop.

That, however, is irrelevant to whether Apple has a right to charge for its services.

One tech that it’s growing in use is Web Apps. Apple does not support it because it requires zero deployment hence no way to include its 30% shared revenue. This hurts customers .... I prefer native apps, but sometime there isn’t any, and Safari does not help.

Which means developers have a way to reach iOS users independent of the App Store, just prefer the app store for
what it provides; and Apple gets paid.

I think the only way Apple will change the policy is if forced by EU or US competition commissions. Because devs need access to that 30% to 50% market share that is hold ransom by Apple.

Apple is not holding anything ransom, if anything they are providing more developers a low coast way to reach a desirable customer base. If the EU does anything, I wopuld hope they would cut the percentage across the board for any provider of digital apps/books/songs etc. Why should a small company be able to charge 30% but not Apple? Given the EU's speed, the issue may well be moot before it happens.

I'd be careful what I wish for - Apple could up the developer cost on the front end to make up for revenue, or charge for free apps as well.

Look, I and my family only use Apple products. We love it. That is not in question as long as the ecosystem keeps on moving forward in quality, not only devices but apps. And even better if it helps foster economical growth to third parties.

I feel the same way about Apple products, I run my business on them exclusively where possible. I take issue with your economic argument given the growth rate of the app store's sales - it seems it has grown the pie for a lot of developers.

But it bugs me being used as the core value of a product in this context ... access to me. After paying so much for the devices:

What you pay is irrelevant to the value Apple brings to the table; making a desirable product creates a market and brings in developers, price of the product be damned.

Sorry if I feel that my usage of the App Store is already well payed for ... no need to charge much to anyone else to serve me through these devices!!!! No need to use me as a PRODUCT!

The app store serves developers so they pay for their usage, just as you pay for the product you use.

But the business worlds does not work only with needs. But with “can”.

[/QUOTE]

The App Store is a fundamental component of the ecosystem. It’s as valuable to me as the choices it provides in terms of Apps. If it has small number of Apps I would have been long gone a such a committed customer. Heck Windows 10 Phone is no longer partially because it lacked good apps.
[/QUOTE]

And it lacked good apps because it lacked sufficient market share.

It bugs me that some dev cannot put an App on the store because I’m being used as a Product, as leverage for it to force the developer to share 30% of its revenue with Apple. That is why today I have no access to that App! There seams to be no issue with the quality of the App or service itself.

Any dirstibution channel is going to charge for selling through their channel. That's how a market works. We can disagree on whether 30% is the right number, but the bottom line is a distributer has a right to charge for their services.

 

[jetrois]

can we also talk about how apple side steps googles 30% cut from apple music by placing payment details in its android app?

* this image taken from apples support documents direct link to apple services

 

[jlc1978]

can we also talk about how apple side steps googles 30% cut from apple music by placing payment details in its android app?

* this image taken from apples support documents direct link to apple services

I would assume GOOGLE’s TOS allow that any any company selling subscription based services would do the same.

 

[seclusion]

Great marketing ploy, complain all over of an app no one has heard of, get caught trying to avoid paying your bill! Complain more and have your publicity show up all over the net, trying to scrounge and scavenge. Poor business model I say!

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Apple is entitled to make money off of its infrastructure and the services it provides.

If that is your point, I fully agree. I also fully agree that they have the right to charge for it.

What we might disagree is that when you or I arrive to a position of power, even if well deserved given our hard working efforts, it does not automatically give us the right to wave that power to get more power / money anyway we please. I mean, in a democracy.

Within this premiss, what is under discussion, is if a company that has such tremendous amount of power, 30 to 50% market share depending on the area, including over their customers even if momentarily, has the power to enforce such a share of money over other people’s efforts.

What if it was 40%, 50% ... 60% ... where would you draw the line? Would ever a line need to be drawn? Why? The thing is, based on you assessment all would be ok. You might think that it has the right to enforce whatever, others might think otherwise depending on other factors but self achievement or ownership. The second its not really a weird idea. It’s actually embedded in the fabric of a democratic society, case in case the US. Only people the believe in non democratic systems think otherwise.

It’s all about balance.

That is all.

Anyway, we’ve wasted too much time on this issue. It will be sort out some way. Thank you for the debate. I just hope that Apple does not end being just another Microsoft. The world needs these companies, because every time their stall or lead other to stall another decade lost.

Personally I don’t like businesses models were the Customer is the product. That is all. And the way this has been run towards suppliers, given such a large market share, it stinks of it. It might be good business in the short term ($$$) but in the long run stalls everything around it.

Heading into WWDC by insulting developers, Apple? Really? - 9to5Mac

Heading into WWDC, Apple isn't exactly getting off to the best of starts. While outlining my view of Apple's overall handling of the antitrust charges ...

9to5mac.com

Apple its mistaken ...

 

[jlc1978]

What if it was 40%, 50% ... 60% ... where would you draw the line? Would ever a line need to be drawn? Why?

It’s all about balance.

I agree, and in a capitalist economy, pricing is a balance. Charge too much and you don’t get enough customers, too little and you get a lot of customers but lose money.

Anyway, it is refreshing to have a reasoned discussion on an issue. Take care. Let’s enjoy our Apple products ...

 

[Nuno Lopes]

I agree, and in a capitalist economy, pricing is a balance. Charge too much and you don’t get enough customers, too little and you get a lot of customers but lose money.

That is not how capitalism works. It’s naive to think so. Check every financial crash. Check who pays for it.

In abstract Using the same rationale Telcos could require 30% revenue of all business flowing tilt rough their infrastructure. They also worked hard for it. Yet the Perception is that they would be ... well regulated. While the Perception around Apple is one of formidable, role model ...

Capitalism works by perception.

Have fun.

 

[jlc1978]

That is not how capitalism works. It’s naive to think so. Check every financial crash. Check who pays for it.

Actually a market crash is not a failure of capitalism. If prices are too high, demand will drop and the value of the underlying securities goes south. Markets are simply a pricing system, and despite Fama not always rational.

Who pays for it is separate from the system in which it occurs.

In abstract Using the same rationale Telcos could require 30% revenue of all business flowing tilt rough their infrastructure. They also worked hard for it. Yet the Perception is that they would be ... well regulated. While the Perception around Apple is one of formidable, role model ...

Sure, if they had setup their system similar to Apple's. They chose to sell access to a set amount of use for a fee to an end user, they are essentially selling you a subscription; Apple provides the end user free access to their store in a retail model. Telco's do take a cut of products and third party services they sell, however; which may to may not be greater than 30%.

As for telco regualtioon, that came about so the telco could operate as a legal monopoloy. In exchange for fixed profit percentages they agreed to regulation, in the US at least. Too me, tah and electric utilities are classic examples of regulatory capture. Airlines pre-deregulation as well.

Capitalism works by perception.

True, but so does any economic system because ultimately it's based on trust.

Have fun.

You too...

 

[Nuno Lopes]

Actually a market crash is not a failure of capitalism. If prices are too high, demand will drop and the value of the underlying securities goes south. Markets are simply a pricing system, and despite Fama not always rational.

CDO much?

As you said, the system only balances out with external component compensating for inconsistencies between “value of a product to build things” and “money”, because supply and demand can be manipulated in some circumstances (irrational if you will).

The idea that everything works because supply and demand always balances out through price it’s a fallacy when presented as the core equation. It needs a third system paying for nothing but survival.

All I’m saying is that when the Customer is the product weird things happen.

Apple provides the end user free access to their store in a retail model.

You see the perception here clouding reality working? Customer access to the App Store is nowhere free. It is just that it’s not a subscription. You need to buy them the devices to get access to it. In fact, if it was not for the App Store and the third party apps the devices today would probably worth a heck load lot less.

It is brilliant!

The idea behind Shiller comment, the rest not quoted, implying that devs want to take Apple for a ride when arguing that the 30% cut in the revenue is excessive given the circumstances ... it’s absurd.

Cheers.

PS: Actually in some cases it can be seen as a subscription. Those schemes that you monthly for the device with automatic upgrades every two years or so. It’s a symbiotic relationship hence not free at all.

 

[jlc1978]

CDO much?

CDO's are a good example of what happens when the underlyimng risk of the debt is not understood. Demand was high becasue people thought they were high quality debt and they were priced accordingly. That assumption was wrong, and those who bet against them made a fortune.

That's not the onlyu exampel. When the former Warsaw Bloc countries privitized, people often confused limited supply indicating strong demand, and overpaid for companies. Long lines did not mean high demand that was going to continue once monopoly power of the state was removed.

As you said, the system only balances out with external component compensating for inconsistencies between “value of a product build things” and “money”, because supply and demand can be manipulated in some circumstances (irrational if you will).

Sure. You can raise prices by withholding supply, as luxury goods show.

The idea that everything works because supply and demand always balances out through price it’s a fallacy when presented as the core equation. It needs a third system paying nothing but survival.

I am not sure what you mean by a third system.

All I’m saying is that when the Customer is the product weird things happen.

Sure, and privacy is the first casualty.

You see the perception here clouding reality working? Customer access to the App Store is nowhere free. It is just that it’s not a subscription. You need to buy them the devices to get access to it.

Sure, but you need not use the app store to use the device, it costs you nothing and even when you use it there is no fee to do so, so that is what I meant by free.

It's like saying if you rent or borrow a car the road isn't free because you pay for the car. Yes, some fraction of the price may be paid by the vehicle's owner to contribute to a road depending on how it is paid for but absent a toll there is no charge for the road to the user of the vehicle.

Of course, in the end, everything is ultimately paid for by a consumer or citizen, TINSTAAFL.

Cheers.

Take care

 

[I7guy]

...
You see the perception here clouding reality working? Customer access to the App Store is nowhere free. It is just that it’s not a subscription. You need to buy them the devices to get access to it. In fact, if it was not for the App Store and the third party apps the devices today would probably worth a heck load lot less.

It is brilliant!

Well the above isn't true either. One can have access to the app store via search, but needs a device to actually execute the app. That's not so far fetched as you can't execute a Windows binary except on windows.

The idea behind Shiller comment comment, the rest not quoted that it implies that devs want to take Apple for a ride when arguing the á 30% cut in the revenue is excessive given the circumstances ... it’s absurd.

Cheers.

PS: Actually in some cases it can be seen as a subscription. Those schemes that you monthly for the device with automatic upgrades every two years or so. It’s a symbiotic relationship hence not free at all.

At any rate, all of this has been (hotly) debated and spun more ways than a top.