Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Well done. Devs are getting ripped off. 30 percent? Apple, seriously!


Yyyeah ok. Back in 2008 small and indie devs were praising the App Store and the 30% rule despite all these things, because they knew then as they do now that Apple brings to them hundreds of millions of potential customers without them having spend one advertising dollar. The same is still true today. Zero advertising spend and they don’t have to manage their own payments, invoicing, collections, charge-backs, and administrative crap? Win win.

Ooohh wait it’s different today because new dev kids have to do real work to make their app attractive and worthwhile.... right. “It’s the kids, Marty. Something has to be done about the kids!”

The kids back then grew up and like Thanos said, they know nothing of what mobile development was like back then. They grew up with full bellies and clear skies; it a paradise. Maybe we need some infinity stones....
 
yeah when your argument boils down to analogies pulled out of the same hole that apple pulled the app store terms... you don't have much of an argument.
The terms are not at all clear, they are not enforced with any consistency, and one can come up with hundred of actual examples that show these inconsistencies within the App store, and not about state troopers and speeding (which is governed by a clear law, and court-backed decisions btw, so yeah your argument fails there too). Should my bank also offer the option to sign up for my credit card through their app and then take a cut out of the yearly fee? Should uber and lyft pay a 30% to Apple for every ride? What do you think?


The bottom line is that Apple is juicing the app store, and engaging in very predatory and illegal tactics while doing so, and someone should step in because clearly they don't care about the developers (anymore) or their users.

I'm sorry you can't understand the difference between a clear rule (what part about "you must use in-app purchase" do you not understand?) and an inconsistently enforced one. My analogy is spot on (clear "rule"/law + inconsistent enforcement). Sounds to me like you're just pissed at Apple's policies, and so are giving a free pass to the developer for violating the policy. But of course, no one put a gun to his head and told him to develop for Apple devices, so no sympathy from me.

The rule is clear, and I've been very clear. If you and others don't see it, then I can't help you. I'm done here.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: pallymore
Oh, so you are just guessing then when you said it violated the terms? I thought you actually knew.
I'm a developer. I understand the guidelines.
Plenty of terms suggest this is not allowed.

See excepts.
we won’t distribute apps and in-app purchase items that are clear rip-offs

You may offer a single subscription that is shared across your own apps and services [...] must be designed to avoid duplicate payment by a subscriber, and should not disadvantage non-subscriber customers.

your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ijbond
Apple are now trying to claim it shouldn't have got through App review in the first place 😂
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2020-06-16 at 23.57.45.png
    Screenshot 2020-06-16 at 23.57.45.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 91
Except the whole thing where, like, they’re not. Are you even paying attention to any of this? That’s long been against the rules; basically every developer knows where the line in the sand is on that. That would certainly include this guy, who is CTO of Basecamp, which does this exact sign-in-only thing with their app.

Screen shots in the OP. Telling people / making people / providing no other option but to - whatever language you want to use. They aren't providing a way to do so within the app, which the rule clearly states they must do. Facts. We're done here. It's crystal clear.
 
The rule is clear, and I've been very clear.
Except it’s not. There’s a “clear” exception granted for several categories which includes at the end “approved services,” which is about as clear as mud and allows Apple to behave arbitrarily. Other similar services have been approved in the past. Why not this one?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pallymore
Apple's line of "Apple allows these kinds of client apps -- where you can't sign up, only sign in -- for business services but not consumer products." is interesting since that is stated nowhere in the App Store Guidelines.

Also there are apps like Fastmail that act just like HEY currently in the store.
 
Screen shots in the OP. Telling people / making people / providing no other option but to - whatever language you want to use. They aren't providing a way to do so within the app, which the rule clearly states they must do. Facts. We're done here. It's crystal clear.
They say “You can’t sign up for HEY in the app.” This doesn’t violate the prohibitions upon apps that choose not to use IAP, which are as follows and are actually very clear:
  • You cannot “directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase.”
  • Your “general communications about other purchasing methods are not designed to discourage use of in-app purchase.”
Best I can tell, purchasing methods aren’t mentioned at all. They just say that you can’t sign up in the app.

(Also, other apps have done more or less this same wording and gotten away with it. Again, why not this one?)
 
  • Like
Reactions: pallymore
”That is obscene, and it's criminal, and I will spend every dollar that we have or ever make to burn this down until we get to somewhere better.”
Maybe build your own mobile operating system, build your own App Store, then put your own app in it. Boom! There’s a solution. Then you don’t have to pay anyone, except yourselves
Is that how you want the technology to develop? Every app developer has to release their own OS? Sounds pretty stupid.
 
Apple rules does not matter. They can make any rules they want and enforce them.

When the EU will look at the case they will statute if those rules were legal or not.
 
Screen shots in the OP. Telling people / making people / providing no other option but to - whatever language you want to use. They aren't providing a way to do so within the app, which the rule clearly states they must do. Facts. We're done here. It's crystal clear.
It doesn't say that you have to sign up outside the app. It says that you can't sign up inside the app. Which is pretty much verbatim what Netflix does, except that Netflix doesn't have that text on a help page – Netflix has that text as the first thing you see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jonblatho
Slack is similar to this app. It was approved. 10b company.

Slack is a "Business App", Hey is apparently a "Consumer App" and so under different rules.

According to Apple.

Anyone here got access to the agreement that covers this?
 
I'm just quoting what Apple stated. Hence me asking for some insight into where this is stated in the agreement.

Don't shoot the messenger!
Well, funny thing, the “clear” rules a certain someone’s been hollering about here don’t cover that distinction ;)
 
Well, funny thing, the “clear” rules a certain someone’s been hollering about here don’t cover that distinction ;)

Don't care about folk here, I'm just reiterating Apple's latest statement on the issue that can be read on the first page in the now updated story.

Hence my post, and my question

The only clear rules I've stated are in regards to the difference between digital and physical goods. Nothing else.
 
Don't care about folk here, I'm just reiterating Apple's latest statement on the issue that can be read on the first page in the now updated story.

Hence my post, and my question.
The exception is in rule 3.1.3(a) of the App Store Review Guidelines:

Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage, and approved services such as classroom management apps), provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods are not designed to discourage use of in-app purchase.

It’d appear that they consider Slack an “approved service,” but they don’t really elaborate on what constitutes an approved service. It gives them leeway to behave arbitrarily and/or anticompetitively.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.