Apple Will Allow Developers to 'Challenge' App Store Review Guidelines Starting This Summer

[Kyanar]

This is such a stupid statement. You're essentially saying "Hey Apple, spend billions of dollars building out the App Store and acquire enough customers so that 500 million people visit the app store every week just so I can get a free ride on this thing". You think platform grows on trees? Apple doesn't owe you a single thing. Luckily Android exists with 80% global marketshare so that makes it hard to consider Apple a monopoly.

I'm saying no such thing, and the only stupid statement is yours. App Store discovery is such a bad joke that actually finding an app using it is a rarity, every app I've downloaded in the last few years has been because a) I use it on another platform (web, Android) or b) I searched it on the store by name because I'd seen something about it or c) I found it on a third party website. Noone's asking for a free ride, they're asking for a fair deal. That's not what they're getting.

Well then...isn't that where the user acquisition should happen *BEFORE* the App Store button shown? It's not like a user can see what the Netflix app can do before the user subscribes because the first thing you see in the Netflix app is the sign in page

Sure for Netflix, because Apple competes with them so gives them sweetheart deals. But for anyone else their app literally isn't allowed to block the user from accessing it until they've created an account outside the app, and when the subscription expires isn't allowed to say "sorry subscription's expired, go subscribe on the website". That's, what's the word I'm looking for... a clear antitrust violation.

It's not hard to implement Apple Pay on the web either where users have nearly the exact same way of subscribing as within the app.

Except you're not allowed to mention subscribing outside the app because of Apple's unlawful rule.

There's barely any difference in the user journey between having the subscription happen on the web before the user downloads the app and having the subscription happen within the app.

Not true. You cannot allow someone to create an account without providing subscription details up front because otherwise when the subscription expires you aren't allowed to tell the user to subscribe without using IAP, and you aren't allowed to not offer IAP. You can't even mention that it's cheaper not to use IAP.

Really your logic doesn't work here.

Oh, my logic is fine. It's yours that's borderline shredded.

 

[Kierkegaarden]

Your argument should have merit if Apple charged free apps as well, which it doesn't. Or if Apple incurred different expenses for a $5 app as a $500 app, which it doesn't. As such, your argument is meritless and specious. Percentage based charges beyond the payment processing are unjustifiable. There would be a lot more acceptance of them if they werent usurious amounts like an entire third.



Wrong. Using market power to harm consumers, competitors, or markets is illegal. And Apple demonstrably does this.


You can't agree contractually to illegal things, no matter what's in a contract.

Contrary to what you may have heard, ignorance is not bliss.

 

[Codpeace]

30% less revenue?

Yes, to be sure. But by what amount is it increased by access to the market?

I’m of the opinion, btw, that Apple’s current App Store regime is anti-competitive and must be restructured.

But it does definitely provide a uniquely direct access to market for many developers. Many have benefited who otherwise might’ve been lost in a vast sea.

The store has positives and negatives. The restructuring— which is coming whether by fiat or by Apple’s initiative — should work to preserve the positives and not just blow the whole thing up over ideology.

 

[Ironman226]

Thanks Oh Apple for the meager scraps.



Please enlighten us. I distribute non-iOS apps via my website, no problem. I pay fees to keep my domain registration, and I have a power bill and an internet bill to keep my $35 Raspberry Pi online.

People who think Apple is doing anything even remotely worth 30% are clueless. Consider this: Apple is totally content with the 30% of nothing they get on free apps. Why? Because distributing apps costs essentially nothing. Apple's App Store contributes little of actual value. Its only value (for entities besides Apple) is artificially produced by the fact that Apple refuses to allow apps to be installed from any other source.

1. Are you going to ask a countries governments to reduce 20% VAT Tax, as well?
2. Are you going to ask your gouvernement to reduce company and income taxes which are around 20 to 50 %?
3. Are you going to reduce your app price when your clients will say you that it is too expensive?
4. Are you going to ask Raspberry to reduce a price of hardware because they earn 50% on it?
5. When serving your app to others via your channel you have to add your time and accounting knowledge which you will be oblige to spend on calculating currency exchanges for each app purchase transaction from different countries in the world. Another subject is surveying your infrastructure and reseting/setting up your server when something will go wrong.What is your own cost per hour?
6. How many apps do you sell via AppStore? 10 per month? What is your app price?

 

[farewelwilliams]

I'm saying no such thing, and the only stupid statement is yours. App Store discovery is such a bad joke that actually finding an app using it is a rarity, every app I've downloaded in the last few years has been because a) I use it on another platform (web, Android) or b) I searched it on the store by name because I'd seen something about it or c) I found it on a third party website.

App Store discovery is fine. My apps were perfectly discoverable (and one was featured on the category which helped make my app very successful). And every app I've downloaded in the past month was me purely in the App Store.

Noone's asking for a free ride, they're asking for a fair deal. That's not what they're getting.

Wrong. You literally asked to implement your own payment processor which would bypass Apple's 30%. That's essentially a free ride on this platform.

Sure for Netflix, because Apple competes with them so gives them sweetheart deals.

What sweetheart deal? There's no sweetheart deal. Anyone with a streaming sevice can do what Netflix is doing. It's in the guidelines. I think you're confused here.

But for anyone else their app literally isn't allowed to block the user from accessing it until they've created an account outside the app, and when the subscription expires isn't allowed to say "sorry subscription's expired, go subscribe on the website". That's, what's the word I'm looking for... a clear antitrust violation.

No. Go read the guidelines, particularly the section about "Reader Apps". Anyone with a content based consumption app that falls under the can literally do what Netflix is doing (and plenty of apps like AT&T Now are doing that today). There is no special sweetheart deal with Netflix. You're 100% wrong about that.

Except you're not allowed to mention subscribing outside the app because of Apple's unlawful rule.

Because every single app would do that and the App Store would be a money losing business and essentially shut down. This isn't like Google Play Store where everything is mostly automated and costs Google nearly nothing to run. Apple has more than 300 full time employees reviewing every single update. Apple is spending billions in R&D in making the developer SDK better every single year (far more than what Google is doing with Android).

Not true. You cannot allow someone to create an account without providing subscription details up front because otherwise when the subscription expires you aren't allowed to tell the user to subscribe without using IAP, and you aren't allowed to not offer IAP. You can't even mention that it's cheaper not to use IAP.

Thanks proving my point. You're essentially saying it's far better to allow the user to create the account on the web first, then pay for the subscription on the web, and *then* show the user the App Store button. What user would download the app and subscribe even before they can create an account to see what Netflix has to offer? That doesn't make sense, so it's better to have the user subscribe via web first, which any "reader" app can do (read the App Store Guidelines on what that means, section 3.1.3(a))

Oh, my logic is fine. It's yours that's borderline shredded.

Alright, well, we're done here. I'm not going to read anymore from you since there's no point.

 

[Kyanar]

1. Are you going to ask a countries governments to reduce 20% VAT Tax, as well?

Taxes pay for the operation of an entire country, which involves supporting the public good such as healthcare, education, transport infrastructure, social welfare, defence, and a whole lot of other things rather than contributing to the cash reserves of a trillion dollar company. When this one company could pay off the national debt of several large nations and still have money left there's a clue that something is very wrong.

2. Are you going to ask your gouvernement to reduce company and income taxes which are around 20 to 50 %?

See above. Crappy argument.

3. Are you going to reduce your app price when your clients will say you that it is too expensive?

If literally everyone except shills and fanboys claimed that it was too expensive, that'd be a clue it probably is. So most likely, yes.

4. Are you going to ask Raspberry to reduce a price of hardware because they earn 50% on it?

a) They don't. And even if they did I wouldn't complain because Raspberry Pi Foundation is a non-profit who produces affordable devices to help children and developing countries learn computing skills, and use that margin from us that can afford to pay more to fund that public good effort. Which is a big different from a trillion dollar publicly traded for-profit corporation.

5. When serving your app to others via your channel you have to add your time and accounting knowledge which you will be oblige to spend on calculating currency exchanges for each app purchase transaction from different countries in the world.

No we don't, we charge in whatever currency we want or we outsource it to someone like FastSpring who will do it for 5 to 10%, remit in our local currency, and will even serve the download file to the customer for no added cost.

Another subject is surveying your infrastructure and reseting/setting up your server when something will go wrong. So it means what is your own cost per hour?

What does this even mean? We already have to do this for the website that advertises the product. And the backend services that provide the subscription content. And the customer service platform we use to provide support for the subscription content.

6. How many apps do you sell via AppStore? 10 per month? What is your app price?

That's... how to put it... none of your business.
[automerge]1592894061[/automerge]

App Store discovery is fine. My apps were perfectly discoverable (and one was featured on the category which helped make my app very successful). And every app I've downloaded in the past month was me purely in the App Store.

Yay for you. More than one person has said the opposite, so whatever.

Wrong. You literally asked to implement your own payment processor which would bypass Apple's 30%. That's essentially a free ride on this platform.

Wrong. I literally asked that Apple not constrain me from selecting a lower cost processor for subscription payments and price signalling to users that In-App Purchases are a more expensive method for them to subscribe and guiding them away from them. That's asking for Apple to cease the unlawful practice of full line forcing which I have filed a complaint with the regulator about.

What sweetheart deal? There's no sweetheart deal. Anyone with a streaming sevice can do what Netflix is doing. It's in the guidelines. I think you're confused here.

No. Go read the guidelines, particularly the section about "Reader Apps". Anyone with a content based consumption app that falls under the can literally do what Netflix is doing (and plenty of apps like AT&T Now are doing that today). There is no special sweetheart deal with Netflix. You're 100% wrong about that.

"Reader" apps are any apps for services which either have a competing service from Apple (because forcing them to pay 30% commission which Apple does not have to pay is a clear violation of anti-trust laws and would result in litigation even from the toothless US Department of Justice), or are developed by companies large enough to make trouble for Apple.

Because every single app would do that and the App Store would be a money losing business and essentially shut down. This isn't like Google Play Store where everything is mostly automated and costs Google nearly nothing to run. Apple has more than 300 full time employees reviewing every single update. Apple is spending billions in R&D in making the developer SDK better every single year (far more than what Google is doing with Android).

Oh come off it. Apple's cost of sales in the "service" category is 30% of their revenues, and that literally includes the salaries of AppleCare engineers, iCloud server engineers, AppleCare executives, AppleCare account managers, Developer Program support, and so on. And what makes it worse is that Services revenue doesn't even include the amount they pay out to developers, so that number that's three times the amount that Apple's "cost of sales" for services? That only includes Apple's 30% commission. So I don't know where you get this crap that it would lose money, or that they spend billions a year, because that's an outright fabrication.

Thanks proving my point. You're essentially saying it's far better to allow the user to create the account on the web first, then pay for the subscription on the web, and *then* show the user the App Store button. What user would download the app and subscribe even before they can create an account to see what Netflix has to offer? That doesn't make sense, so it's better to have the user subscribe via web first, which any "reader" app can do (read the App Store Guidelines on what that means, section 3.1.3(a))

See before as to why "Reader" apps is a load of bull.

Alright, well, we're done here. I'm not going to read anymore from you since there's no point.

Imagine having such a level of Stockholm Syndrome that you'd defend a trillion dollar company (as in they have a trillion dollars in the bank) charging 30% of every businesses revenue simply to deign to be allowed to sell to a particular device user. If Microsoft decided Windows required you to pay 30% of every sale to them, you'd be champing at the bit to have them broken up.

 

[hollersoft]

People who think Apple is doing anything even remotely worth 30% are clueless. Consider this: Apple is totally content with the 30% of nothing they get on free apps. Why? Because distributing apps costs essentially nothing. Apple's App Store contributes little of actual value. Its only value (for entities besides Apple) is artificially produced by the fact that Apple refuses to allow apps to be installed from any other source.

I guess I’m clueless. As a small time developer I’m OK with 30%. That value you mention that is artificially produced does actually have some value, although it’s difficult to quantify.

It has created an atmosphere of trust from users. iOS users are more willing to install new apps and are willing to pay more than Android users on average. Apple has been doing something right; the Play Store has the same 30% commission but does not have that same level of trust.

 

[Ironman226]

Taxes pay for the operation of an entire country, which involves supporting the public good such as healthcare, education, transport infrastructure, social welfare, defence, and a whole lot of other things rather than contributing to the cash reserves of a trillion dollar company. When this one company could pay off the national debt of several large nations and still have money left there's a clue that something is very wrong.


See above. Crappy argument.


If literally everyone except shills and fanboys claimed that it was too expensive, that'd be a clue it probably is. So most likely, yes.


a) They don't. And even if they did I wouldn't complain because Raspberry Pi Foundation is a non-profit who produces affordable devices to help children and developing countries learn computing skills, and use that margin from us that can afford to pay more to fund that public good effort. Which is a big different from a trillion dollar publicly traded for-profit corporation.


No we don't, we charge in whatever currency we want or we outsource it to someone like FastSpring who will do it for 5 to 10%, remit in our local currency, and will even serve the download file to the customer for no added cost.


What does this even mean? We already have to do this for the website that advertises the product. And the backend services that provide the subscription content. And the customer service platform we use to provide support for the subscription content.


That's... how to put it... none of your business.
[automerge]1592894061[/automerge]

Yay for you. More than one person has said you're full of crap, so whatever.


Wrong. I literally asked that Apple not constrain me from selecting a lower cost processor for subscription payments and price signalling to users that In-App Purchases are a more expensive method for them to subscribe and guiding them away from them. That's asking for Apple to cease the unlawful practice of full line forcing which I have filed a complaint with the regulator about.


"Reader" apps are any apps for services which either have a competing service from Apple (because forcing them to pay 30% commission which Apple does not have to pay is a clear violation of anti-trust laws and would result in litigation even from the toothless US Department of Justice), or are developed by companies large enough to make trouble for Apple.


Oh come off it. Apple's cost of sales in the "service" category is 30% of their revenues, and that literally includes the salaries of AppleCare engineers, iCloud server engineers, AppleCare executives, AppleCare account managers, Developer Program support, and so on. And what makes it worse is that Services revenue doesn't even include the amount they pay out to developers, so that number that's three times the amount that Apple's "cost of sales" for services? That only includes Apple's 30% commission. So I don't know where you get this crap that it would lose money, or that they spend billions a year, because that's an outright fabrication.


See before as to why "Reader" apps is a load of bull.


Imagine having such a level of Stockholm Syndrome that you'd defend a trillion dollar company (as in they have a trillion dollars in the bank) charging 30% of every businesses revenue simply to deign to be allowed to sell to a particular device user. If Microsoft decided Windows required you to pay 30% of every sale to them, you'd be champing at the bit to have them broken up. Delusional.

Taxes pay for the operation of an entire country, which involves supporting the public good such as healthcare, education, transport infrastructure, social welfare, defence, and a whole lot of other things rather than contributing to the cash reserves of a trillion dollar company. When this one company could pay off the national debt of several large nations and still have money left there's a clue that something is very wrong.


See above. Crappy argument.


If literally everyone except shills and fanboys claimed that it was too expensive, that'd be a clue it probably is. So most likely, yes.


a) They don't. And even if they did I wouldn't complain because Raspberry Pi Foundation is a non-profit who produces affordable devices to help children and developing countries learn computing skills, and use that margin from us that can afford to pay more to fund that public good effort. Which is a big different from a trillion dollar publicly traded for-profit corporation.


No we don't, we charge in whatever currency we want or we outsource it to someone like FastSpring who will do it for 5 to 10%, remit in our local currency, and will even serve the download file to the customer for no added cost.


What does this even mean? We already have to do this for the website that advertises the product. And the backend services that provide the subscription content. And the customer service platform we use to provide support for the subscription content.


That's... how to put it... none of your business.
[automerge]1592894061[/automerge]

Yay for you. More than one person has said you're full of crap, so whatever.


Wrong. I literally asked that Apple not constrain me from selecting a lower cost processor for subscription payments and price signalling to users that In-App Purchases are a more expensive method for them to subscribe and guiding them away from them. That's asking for Apple to cease the unlawful practice of full line forcing which I have filed a complaint with the regulator about.


"Reader" apps are any apps for services which either have a competing service from Apple (because forcing them to pay 30% commission which Apple does not have to pay is a clear violation of anti-trust laws and would result in litigation even from the toothless US Department of Justice), or are developed by companies large enough to make trouble for Apple.


Oh come off it. Apple's cost of sales in the "service" category is 30% of their revenues, and that literally includes the salaries of AppleCare engineers, iCloud server engineers, AppleCare executives, AppleCare account managers, Developer Program support, and so on. And what makes it worse is that Services revenue doesn't even include the amount they pay out to developers, so that number that's three times the amount that Apple's "cost of sales" for services? That only includes Apple's 30% commission. So I don't know where you get this crap that it would lose money, or that they spend billions a year, because that's an outright fabrication.


See before as to why "Reader" apps is a load of bull.


Imagine having such a level of Stockholm Syndrome that you'd defend a trillion dollar company (as in they have a trillion dollars in the bank) charging 30% of every businesses revenue simply to deign to be allowed to sell to a particular device user. If Microsoft decided Windows required you to pay 30% of every sale to them, you'd be champing at the bit to have them broken up. Delusional.

1. You say that Raspberry Pi has a Foundation which helps a children around the world, but you forgetting about Apple foundation.
2. So you are going to give 10% to fastspring, you are going buy a new hardware, you are going to allocate your staff to deal with hardware issues. In total you are going to put more effort which cost you a money.
3. So this is not about 30% which takes Apple but a difference which can be about from 20, 10 or 0%.

 

[J InTech82]

If I have a subscription, and I provide the content, the content distribution, the customer service, and am willing to provide the payment processing, what Apple provides is nothing except rent-seeking.

Oh because everything that goes into the App Store is completely free for Apple? All those servers, all those building around the world to house the servers, the connectivity, the bandwidth, the support, the staff, the maintenance, the development, the payment processing, that's all free? For 1.5 billion + users? Apple didn't have to pay a single dime for that? And the continued support on a 24/7 basis is also free? Wow, that's awesome, I had no idea it didn't/doesn't cost Apple a single dime to support one of the largest online app stores in existence.....

 

[Murkrage]

I'm not saying I agree with the 30%, but anyone arguing that it goes to absolutely nothing except 'having your app on the app store' has no clue about the topic whatsoever. The database management alone is worth quite a bit of your app's revenue. The tools available to you as a developer are incredibly extensive and free I might add. The tools you use are worth far more than the 99 dollar per year developers pay to have their free app on the platform.

Nevermind the fact when a free app gets popular and has thousands (perhaps millions) of users whose data Apple stores for you for free. Taking a cut from IAP revenue isn't such a bad thing. 30%, that might be a bit overblown, but it's not unreasonable to take a percentage of the revenue generated by IAP to accomodate everything the system has to offer.

 

[Akrapovic]

Another overblown Apple issue. Developers have no idea what the 30% fee earns them.

lol. These stupid developers. They just have no idea what it earns them. They should spend less time developing apps and businesses and spend more time listening to the real experts on the interwebs.

 

[aleni]

The big question. When would Apple allow game console emulators such as dolphin, dsemu or epsxe in the appstore?

 

[Ironman226]

The big question. When would Apple allow game console emulators such as dolphin, dsemu or epsxe in the appstore?

The best experience those emulated games can have only on Nitendo boxes

 

[Kyanar]

1. You say that Raspberry Pi has a Foundation which helps a children around the world, but you forgetting about Apple foundation.

The Awarding Programs that Promote Learning Excellence Foundation that has absolutely nothing to do with Apple Inc? Weird flex but OK.

2. So you are going to give 10% to fastspring, you are going buy a new hardware, you are going to allocate your staff to deal with hardware issues. In total you are going to put more effort which cost you a money.

What are you blathering about? I don't use any particular supplier, though I could, however I can use my existing infrastructure that I already must maintain for the actual product itself for no additional charge, and lose 1.5% to credit card processing. So in total I will not cost me a money.

3. So this is not about 30% which takes Apple but a difference which can be about from 20, 10 or 0%.

No it's about Apple deliberately full line forcing sellers to use their uncompetitive processing services, which increases the cost for businesses and consumers. Seriously. Stockholm syndrome guys...
[automerge]1592908981[/automerge]

Oh because everything that goes into the App Store is completely free for Apple? All those servers, all those building around the world to house the servers, the connectivity, the bandwidth, the support, the staff, the maintenance, the development, the payment processing, that's all free? For 1.5 billion + users? Apple didn't have to pay a single dime for that? And the continued support on a 24/7 basis is also free? Wow, that's awesome, I had no idea it didn't/doesn't cost Apple a single dime to support one of the largest online app stores in existence.....

I've already covered off how Apple's "services" costs are less than a third of their services revenue, and their services revenue doesn't even include the 70% they pay to the actual sellers of their apps. So again, the 30% is clearly way over their actual costs and reasonable profit margins.

Also, once again, for a subscription Apple incurs none of those costs, but imposes a 30% charge for nothing but payment processing while the seller incurs all of those costs.

 

[Ironman226]

The Awarding Programs that Promote Learning Excellence Foundation that has absolutely nothing to do with Apple Inc? Weird flex but OK.


What are you blathering about? I don't use any particular supplier, though I could, however I can use my existing infrastructure that I already must maintain for the actual product itself for no additional charge, and lose 1.5% to credit card processing. So in total I will not cost me a money.


No it's about Apple deliberately full line forcing sellers to use their uncompetitive processing services, which increases the cost for businesses and consumers. Seriously. Stockholm syndrome guys...

1. How much of your earnings you have gave to others last year?

2. Yeah, you sounds like a developer who gets a ticket to do and says it is easy and will take a one hour and then he is going back and saying sorry it took me two weeks. There is nothing which is frictionless. You will get your problems to solve and this will cost you a money a time which equals to money.

3. They services have a competition from Android.

 

[farewelwilliams]

lol. These stupid developers. They just have no idea what it earns them. They should spend less time developing apps and businesses and spend more time listening to the real experts on the interwebs.

or at least realize how spoiled they are that they’re demanding free 100% distribution on a platform Apple spends billions on maintaining. that would be an obvious first step

 

[Akrapovic]

or at least realize how spoiled they are that they’re demanding free 100% distribution on a platform Apple spends billions on maintaining. that would be an obvious first step

Developer accounts are paid accounts. There is no 100% free distribution, regardless if the app is free or not.

And given the AppStore is still a massive marketing centre for Apple over a decade after introduction, it's wilful ignorance to suggest the existence of the free apps on the AppStore is not a massive positive for Apple.

 

[Detnator]

Your argument should have merit if Apple charged free apps as well, which it doesn't. Or if Apple incurred different expenses for a $5 app as a $500 app, which it doesn't. As such, your argument is meritless and specious. Percentage based charges beyond the payment processing are unjustifiable. There would be a lot more acceptance of them if they werent usurious amounts like an entire third.

Wrong. Using market power to harm consumers, competitors, or markets is illegal. And Apple demonstrably does this.
You can't agree contractually to illegal things, no matter what's in a contract.

Maybe... just maybe... there’s an argument for Apple “harming” developers by charging them for a service... wait... well anyway... how on earth do the App Stores harm consumers in any way let alone any illegal way???

Good grief.

As for your argument against percentages, how else are they supposed to charge? Flat fee based on their costs? Multiple things wrong here...

1. That’s now how the world - or at least the free market world - works. Apple has every right to charge whatever the hell they want for a value service they provide. It’s not about the COST to Apple, it’s about the VALUE to the developer and the consumer. Otherwise, how about they charge more for a Mac bought in a store in downtown LA vs one bought in a store in rural Montana, because the rent on the store is more?

2. But ok, let’s say they base it on cost and charge a flat fee for everyone. Except wait... some apps are downloaded more and that puts a greater strain on the servers - so they should charge per download? Or then there’s the size of the app - if you take up more of their storage you should pay more, so $/MB? How about how often you update the app and run it through their upload process? That costs them each time. How about a per support ticket charge to you as well, every time you need any help

3. But ok maybe that’s all too hard so let’s just make it a flat fee for everyone - including free apps. Firstly, If Apple charges developers of free apps then developers will stop making free apps. That will harm the consumer!

4. The remaining apps are then charged per per app, or per download per app, right? So then developers who make multiple ops will game the system by putting the functionality of all their apps into one bloated app. That’s not good for anyone. How about in-app purchases? How should they charge for those? Flat fee per transaction?


I could go on and on...

Bottom line: “Percentage based charging beyond the processing are unjustifiable.” With that statement you’ve shown how utterly oblivious you are to the service the App Stores provide and the value they provide to both consumer and developer. And you just want something for nothing. People accuse Apple of greed? No that’s greed right there.

Then again, I suppose you think everyone should pay the same $ in tax every year no matter the earnings (even those who make no income), and all wages should be the same no matter the skill or experience of the worker.
[automerge]1592922680[/automerge]

If I have a subscription, and I provide the content, the content distribution, the customer service, and am willing to provide the payment processing, what Apple provides is nothing except rent-seeking.

Then why do you care? There’s a whole enormous market out there for Android apps that doesn’t have to abide by Apple’s rules And gives you the option to do everything you just said. Why don’t you just make your apps for then and stop wasting your time, energy and money with Apple?

The fact is you’re here arguing about it because there’s value for devs of Apple platform apps - value you want some of - but you’re whining because you can’t get it for free or cheap.

Who are the greedy ones here really?
[automerge]1592922797[/automerge]

Uh, no they're not. Netflix doesn't allow you to sign up in app, and you also cannot use IAP to subscribe in app (actually, you cannot even sign in without a subscription).

Yet despite all those limitations, they’re still doing fine. What’s the problem?

 

[Detnator]

In no world does a referral result in a 30% commission to another business who at a whim can terminate your relationship with your own customers except Apple's (and your) fantasy world. Get out of here.


No it means the user was using the Netflix app, possibly from the "Available on App Store" button on Netflix's own website, and clicked subscribe because Apple says Netflix isn't allowed to offer a "go here to subscribe" in the app.

Apple's real reason why apps must have at least a free trial available from the app is so that when the free trial stops working you have to say "subscribe now" and use IAP because Apple believes antitrust laws don't apply to them and mandate that you use In-App Purchases.

Except you don’t. What are you talking about???

If you discovered the app from Netflix’s own marketing then you’re on Netflix’s site before you’re on the App Store. So you subscribe from the site and Apple perhaps provides nothing except their enforced “must download from here” which they don’t charge for.

If you discovered the app because of the App Store then Apple should get something.

I’m just not getting your issue here.

However...

Well then...isn't that where the user acquisition should happen *BEFORE* the App Store button shown? It's not like a user can see what the Netflix app can do before the user subscribes because the first thing you see in the Netflix app is the sign in page.

It's not hard to implement Apple Pay on the web either where users have nearly the exact same way of subscribing as within the app.

Really your logic doesn't work here.

Exactly.

 

[Detnator]

Holy Heck, Rog, I think this is the first time we have agreed on anything.
But seriously, I think I’ve located an app via the App Store directly maybe twice in the decade or so it’s been in existence. Generally when I install an app it is because I heard about it from somewhere else or via google search when looking for an app to fulfill whatever need I had for it. From that point if the the App Store didn’t exist and Apple allowed us to, I would find said app the same way I have been for 20 years now on my personal computer: google the apps website and download directly. Looking at my home screen I don’t see a single app that I needed the App Store to acquire if I weren’t forced to. Instagram, Netflix, twitter, chrome, pandora and audible etc all could have been downloaded directly without any interaction from Apple’s servers in any way shape or form if they didn’t directly require it.

For folks that justify the 30% cut Apple takes because that is how Apple keeps users safe; by limiting downloads to only apps that are tested and approved by Apple, removing the App Store limitation wouldn’t stop Apple from controlling the API’s required for Apps to function on an iOS device. If an app was discovered to be abusing a particular API in a way that violated Apple’s TOS, they could disable that functionality via a simple OTA update. Apple has already demonstrated its ability to do just this numerous times in the past, so we know the framework not only exists but is already deployed and operational. Sorry but Apple’s insistence that the App Store is absolutely vital has already been disproven by its own past actions so its ludicrous to even entertain it further.

Riiight. Just turn off the API. For one app. And no others. What are you talking about?

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Well for one, I bet connections to your Raspberry Pi are blocked in China (you know, the world's largest smartphone market), while the App Store takes care of distributing behind China's great firewall (which the Play Store doesn't BTW) along with hundreds of other servers around the world so that your app doesn't take 2 hours to download from the other side of the world.

If Apple is providing some special service for me in China, they should be charging for that only in China, not globally. But again, how do you explain the fact that Apple is content with making nothing if my app is free? Whether my app is free or not, it still needs to pass through The Great Firewall.

 

[Detnator]

...

That's, what's the word I'm looking for... a clear antitrust violation.

...

Except you're not allowed to mention subscribing outside the app because of Apple's unlawful rule.

What a load of codswallop. People like to throw these “unlawful”, “illegal”, “anti-trust” words around a lot but they just don’t apply.

No matter what any of you say there’s no argument here. Either you like Apple stuff and are willing to pay what they want to charge for it and follow their rules, or you don’t, and you go to other options that exist. It’s that simple.

People look at Apple’s products as individual products but Apple’s greatest strength is it provides a package - the entire ecosystem or walled garden. Perhaps not for everyone but for those who get it, the garden is better - for the consumer - because it is walled.

Does Apple have a monopoly on its own products, platform, garden? Yes, of course. That’s part of its value. And that’s the same with any other decent company.

Does Apple have a monopoly on any particular market? No.

If you (everyone here complaining about this stuff) don’t like Apple’s rules, prices, policies, products, philosophies, or anything else, then vote with your wallet, don’t buy their stuff, and for goodness sake find something better to do with your life than sitting around on a forum whining.

You have a very clear choice. There’s nothing unlawful or anti-trust or anything else Apple is doing here.

Now... Compare this with some of MS’s practices in the 90’s.

They didn’t just make a bunch of products that you choose to buy or not buy based on their merits. They required PC hardware manufacturers to only sell hardware with Windows. If anyone offered for sale any PC that didn’t come with Windows then MS pulled their license for Windows. They manipulated their 95+% market share to remove choice of any kind from manufacturers and consumers.

Apple isn’t doing anything like that here. Apple doesn’t say if you want to sell your app on our store you can’t sell it anywhere else. They’re just saying that if we’re going to distribute your app for you then you can’t go promoting people paying for it outside our service to circumvent us getting a cut for our service. Even so they still let people pay for it outside their service, they just don’t let you promote that from within their service. How the hell is that unreasonable?

Apple’s greedy? No. If you or anyone thinks the above is unreasonable then you just want a feee ride and you’re the one who‘s greedy.
[automerge]1592927032[/automerge]

I'm saying no such thing, and the only stupid statement is yours. App Store discovery is such a bad joke that actually finding an app using it is a rarity, every app I've downloaded in the last few years has been because a) I use it on another platform (web, Android) or b) I searched it on the store by name because I'd seen something about it or c) I found it on a third party website. Noone's asking for a free ride, they're asking for a fair deal. That's not what they're getting.

More complete codswallop. If you think your app discovery process is typical of Apple’s user base you’re out of touch with reality. Your experience is fine, but the vast majority of Apple’s user base get a great deal of value out of the App Store’s app discovery process.

It’s clear to me that your issues with Apple are entirely because you’re in a minority and are in no way typical of Apple’s user base. The question is why on earth do you want to have anything to do with Apple’s products and services when your philosophies and priorities are so contrary to Apple’s, and those of Apple’s typical and target users? Your philosophies are much more in line with Google’s and Microsoft’s so why are you even here instead of with them?
[automerge]1592927361[/automerge]

Most users don't need another way.

Nicely said. Exactly. Nor do they want one.

As per my comment above, the people here complaining about Apple’s practices are not Apple’s typical and target users and just don’t understand the immense benefits Apple’s practices do provide the vast majority of Apple’s typical users - who appreciate those benefits, which is why they keep choosing to buy the stuff despite plenty of cheaper alternatives.

 

[Detnator]

Imagine having such a level of Stockholm Syndrome that you'd defend a trillion dollar company (as in they have a trillion dollars in the bank)

Farewellwilliams, I, and others here, have refuted a number of your arguments so far, and your responses are just getting more and more utterly ridiculous.

There is so much wrong with everything you are saying. In almost all of it you have no idea what tf you’re talking about.

This one really takes the cake. A trillion dollar company means they have a trillion dollar market cap meaning the sum of all the shares add up to a trillion dollars. Those shares are owned by millions of shareholders. There is nothing like a trillion dollars in the bank.

Again, you hate Apple’s policies and philosophies so much, why are you even here? Nothing about you makes any sense.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Developer accounts are paid accounts. There is no 100% free distribution, regardless if the app is free or not.

And given the AppStore is still a massive marketing centre for Apple over a decade after introduction, it's wilful ignorance to suggest the existence of the free apps on the AppStore is not a massive positive for Apple.

$99/year is meaningless as it only covers about 3 hours of app review time (so basically three update submissions) even though you’re allowed to (and most do) submit more than 3 updates
[automerge]1592939124[/automerge]

how do you explain the fact that Apple is content with making nothing if my app is free?

Steve Jobs explained this already. He literally said on stage “we‘re going to pay for everything to get those free apps out there because the developer and us have the same goal: to get as many apps out there to as many iPhones as possible”

Pure free apps add huge value to the platform. Apps that don’t work as soon as you open don’t add huge value to the platform. That’s why Apple is fine with free apps.

 

[jgbr]

It's not ok to just say "includes bug fixes and improvements".