You can bet I would.And this the EU can fix. Even if sideloading were possible, almost nobody would do it. FYI.
You can bet I would.And this the EU can fix. Even if sideloading were possible, almost nobody would do it. FYI.
Well done. Devs are getting ripped off. 30 percent? Apple, seriously!
You can bet I would.
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 a developer. I understand the guidelines.Oh, so you are just guessing then when you said it violated the terms? I thought you actually knew.
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.
Which antitrust law are you talking about? And the rule about physical goods vs. digital goods is not a “whim”.I know. And that’s exactly the issue. Apple can’t decide things on a whim. As per Anti Trust laws.
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.
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?The rule is clear, and I've been very clear.
No. And that’s again an issue that the EU Anti Trust people will raise.
As a developer, what Apple offers (backend, tax compliance, support & storage) is well worth the 30%.
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: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.
Is that how you want the technology to develop? Every app developer has to release their own OS? Sounds pretty stupid.”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
It’s not per developer. If you’re paying per developer, you’re paying a lot of money unnecessarily.… especially when you're already paying $100/yr per developer just to build things.
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.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.
Slack is similar to this app. It was approved. 10b company.
Nope.Slack is a "Business App", Hey is apparently a "Consumer App" and so under different rules.
Nope.
Why would anyone pay $99/yr to use this? Talk about getting ripped off!Well done. Devs are getting ripped off. 30 percent? Apple, seriously!
Well, funny thing, the “clear” rules a certain someone’s been hollering about here don’t cover that distinctionI'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![]()
The exception is in rule 3.1.3(a) of the App Store Review Guidelines: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.
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.