The line from “email service” to “cloud storage” is pretty straight, in my opinion.
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
It'll be negotiated down, with an agreement that the matter is closed. Apple will offset the cost against taxes and come out of it just fine.
This is not the real world here. When you're Apple's size normal rules no longer apply.
There are hundreds of such apps I’m sure. Basecamp can’t just be overlooked. It’s one of the biggest companies in the world. The largest CMS in the world.
The real reason Apple allows Netflix and Spotify to avoid the 30% tax is that the general public might make a decision to buy an Android vs an Apple phone based on if it connected to Netflix. In other words many people would move to Android if Netflix dropped Apple. No one will move to Android if "Hey" drops Apple.
This is the only thing Apple cares about. If your app is so good that phone buyers would only buy a phone that runs that app then you have the power to tell Apple what Apple must do and Apple is forced to listen.
I am certain that if Instagram were to say "We will remove access to Instagram content from IOS unless you offer an iPhone with an ugly green color then you can bet Apple will say "yes sir!" will offer an ugly green phone. But if a company called "Hey" made the same demand they'd be laughed at.
This is exactly what is going on here. Netflix says "We are not going to pay your tax" so Apple re-writes their tax rules in such a way that Netflix is exempt from the tax. But small-time developers lack the ablty to force Apple to re-write rules.
This is the only thing Apple cares about. If your app is so good that phone buyers would only buy a phone that runs that app then you have the power to tell Apple what Apple must do and Apple is forced to listen.
I am certain that if Instagram were to say "We will remove access to Instagram content from IOS unless you offer an iPhone with an ugly green color then you can bet Apple will say "yes sir!" will offer an ugly green phone. But if a company called "Hey" made the same demand they'd be laughed at.
This is exactly what is going on here. Netflix says "We are not going to pay your tax" so Apple re-writes their tax rules in such a way that Netflix is exempt from the tax. But small-time developers lack the ablty to force Apple to re-write rules.
Wait until you sell a boxed product in a store, and they take the same cut.
I know somebody who's selling a tech hardware product and between them, the distributor, and the retailer, they get 50% of the price the consumer pays.
Cost of doing business.
So you’re siding by somebody that bribes judges for a living?
You are kind of right and who knows what will it be in 20 years but with the tens of billions Apple is stashing away i am not worried to much. More competition would be great. What i hope is that regulators not only look at the cuts Apple takes because those are all the high profile cases but also the fact they will not allow an App if they deemed it's not in their best business interest (almost quoting textually what is in their guidelines) which is 100% anti-competitive according to the law.
This. The only guy who gets it.
[automerge]1592346327[/automerge]
Nobody can dictate what Apple charges. EU can ensure they open up side loading. They can’t legally stop them from charging 30%. But they can allow apps to circumvent it to give Apple 0%. That is it.
Really? How would you like zero revenue instead of $70 million?
Traditionally, distributors charged 50+% of retail price to get you into a store. Some just don’t understand how good a deal 30% is.
I can understand wanting to pay less though, everyone always wants to pay less.
Last edited:
30% is fair. The issue is not having the same ground rules for all companies. That is the issue here.
if it cost more in app, Spotify and Netflix would have probably done this a long time ago.
So your argument would go away if the EU ruled that Apple had to go after larger companies who until now had managed to circumvent said rule?
Pretty sure according to his tweets the issue is the guy doesn't want to pay Apple a third of his revenue
Would have worked earlier. Won’t work now. Since Apple didn‘t do it for a decade. Screams mal intent. So now they have no choice but to play by the old rules. Forever.
[automerge]1592346584[/automerge]
He shouldn’t have to. As per Apple rules, he should be paying 0.
I agree with Apple here, I think it's shady for apps to tell you to go to an outside site to pay them for a subscription then come back and use their app.
Secondly, and this is sort of off topic for this article, $99/year for an email app? Really? When there are perfectly good free apps out there? Geez!
Secondly, and this is sort of off topic for this article, $99/year for an email app? Really? When there are perfectly good free apps out there? Geez!
I see a lot of peoples saying it's Apple hardware, it's Apple iOS, it's their store. Apple should be able to do what they want.
Personally I agree with that ...
but that's not what the law says. Remember the Microsoft anti-monopoly trial. Microsoft could have say it's our Windows, we can do what we want on it, if you are not happy don't make a software for it, make one for Linux or Mac OS instead but that's not how the law works.
Personally I agree with that ...
but that's not what the law says. Remember the Microsoft anti-monopoly trial. Microsoft could have say it's our Windows, we can do what we want on it, if you are not happy don't make a software for it, make one for Linux or Mac OS instead but that's not how the law works.
Where did I say that? I'm just being realistic. No where did I condone such behavior and I'd appreciate an apology for making such an accusation.
Oh, so you are just guessing then when you said it violated the terms? I thought you actually knew.
Actually, it’s more that this rule seemingly doesn’t apply to his other company, one that’s far more known, Basecamp:
Spotify used to do this I think. But then they removed the option because I think Apple banned doing that.
I can’t vouch for Netflix but Spotify definitely charged more for IAP, later emailing users to notify them that they could save money by directly subscribing through their site, for some time.
[automerge]1592346773[/automerge]
No, they just stopped doing it of their own volition. If Apple banned it, lord knows we’d definitely have heard from Spotify about it. They’ve not exactly been quiet on this issue.