Finally, no more denials for a simple big fix when the reviewer doesn’t spend more than 5 seconds in the app
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 Will Allow Developers to 'Challenge' App Store Review Guidelines Starting This Summer
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You haven't refuted a single argument actually. You just keep repeating the same rubbish. It's absolutely Stockholm Syndrome.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with what I'm saying at all. You just refuse to believe the simple truth because youre too stuck on the "apple can do no wrong" bandwagon. I have news for you: regulators are starting to take notice because logical developers are sick of it.
Apologies, they only have a tenth of a trillion dollars in the bank and another quarter of a trillion dollars in assets. When you're talking about the budgets of entire governments, who gives a flying rats?
Because their products are good, they way they conduct their business is not. That's like being one of those people who says "if you don't love it, leave" about the country rather than, you know, encouraging political discourse and voting.
You do realize there is a cost of doing business and then generally a charge on top of that so they actually make profit. If I buy an apple for $1.00, I will price it at $2.50 so I can cover all my costs and take a profit from it. You do realize they have actual staff and bills to pay right? Just because they own the buildings, doesn't mean there isn't ANY cost. Heaven forbid Apple provide a service where they are making developers money and they try to get a tiny profit from it! Lets let all the developers make the money and Apple nothing, yeah, that's a great way of doing business. How about you make your own phone so you can come up with a new way of doing things, I would love to see how that works for you.
Yeah, they do. Apple's requirement to not steer customers to less costly methods of subscribing is actually near process identical to our regulator's example description of full line forcing, which they refer to as "unlawful conduct". Needless to say I filed a complaint.
As the developer you do not have that choice. If a customer says "when is the iOS version coming" I cannot just tell them "never, buy an Android". And Apple says I also cannot publish an app that requires a pre-existing subscription.
No, walled gardens which don't offer choice are not better for the consumer. Especially not ones which add a 30% cost to everything - you basically just said China was good for the citizens.
Monopolies are irrelevant.
Again, textbook unlawful conduct. Also, again, I cannot control what devices my customers use.
[automerge]1592951744[/automerge]
Tiny profit? I already told you people with your fingers in your ears that the services division doesn't make a "tiny" profit at all. It makes an immense profit. Explain why Apple's profit should be an exponentialls increasing amount depending on the price of the product?
Because you're clearly in the know, could you please give me a break down of all of Apple's expenses for their Services?
That's not a breakdown of the specific costs Apple accumulates dedicated to the App Store, in fact the App Store was only specifically mentioned six times. Try again.
I'm not willing to continue to engage with people being deliberately disingenuous in order to justify their Stockholm Syndrome.
Apple’s easy ride from U.S. authorities may be over
The Justice Department and a coalition of state attorneys general are focusing on the company’s iron-clad control of its App Store.
We all knew this was coming. My guess is Apple will allow apps to use their own payment methods and will reduce the cut from 30% to 15%. Many developers will still use IAP but bigger names will use their own. Honestly that will be the best for consumers and developers which is what Apple should care about.
Anyone who thinks they can run an internet business without paying affiliate marketing commission to those who bring them paying customers is clueless.
But it’s better that I have to create an account with an app using my email credentials rather than anonymise it with Sign In with Apple? It’s better to have to navigate to a website and key in my payment information than purchase it directly from an App Store (and repeat this for every app that I purchase?), and it’s better to purchase an app based on blind faith that the developer will not try to do anything funny, than have it be vetted by an organisation that holds no allegiance to developers.
Not saying that walled gardens are perfect, but by and large, they give me more of what I want, rather than saddling me with more issues to contend with, and the pros do outweigh the cons for me.
Let’s just call it for what it is. That sometimes, what developers want may not be in sync with that consumers want. That what may be good for developers may not be ideal for consumers, and vice versa. And there will always be this friction.
I don’t mean to tar all developers with the same brush, but the reality is that with 23 million developers in the App Store, even a small number of rogue players is still a very large number in an absolute sense and from a consumer’s standpoint, I feel safer knowing that their actions are being vetted by a third party than leaving it to the wild Wild West.
And that when the vested interests of consumers and developers collide, Apple has a tendency to side with consumers because they are the ones buying Apple products (not saying developers don’t, but the former still outnumbers the latter immensely) and that’s why I continue to buy Apple products, because I know where I stand as a consumer.
All of my sales were generated by MacWorld running articles about my apps, for which I paid nothing, and word of mouth between my customers, which I also paid nothing for.
Anyone who thinks that Apple doesn't massively benefit from the free apps in the AppStore is being deliberately dense. "There's an app for that" has become such an important feature of the device that they don't even need to market it now. It's just expected the app will exist. If free apps for all these services stopped existing for iPhone, but continued to exist for Android, people would start questioning why they can't do all this stuff on their iPhone.
Free apps are the backbone if the AppStore, which bring people to it who will then spend money elsewhere. Without free apps, the AppStore and iPhone would not be in the position it is in.
Or, to be blunt - if you couldn't get Outlook, Gmail, Chrome, Amazon, WhatsApp, Twitter, YouTube and eBay apps on the iPhone, it'd have failed by now. These apps bring no income, but they bring users. Who in turn, then bring income. Free apps are far more financially important than the money the app itself doesn't bring.
Free apps are the backbone if the AppStore, which bring people to it who will then spend money elsewhere. Without free apps, the AppStore and iPhone would not be in the position it is in.
Or, to be blunt - if you couldn't get Outlook, Gmail, Chrome, Amazon, WhatsApp, Twitter, YouTube and eBay apps on the iPhone, it'd have failed by now. These apps bring no income, but they bring users. Who in turn, then bring income. Free apps are far more financially important than the money the app itself doesn't bring.
So what do your apps do? How do people find your apps? How does anyone even know your apps exist? How well are they selling?
If you think that 30%
Not bothering to look at any source other than my own anecdotal experience for now, but the vast majority of free apps I've ever had any interest in are "lite" versions of some more featured paid app from the same developer (or an in-app purchase within the same app) that I then often wind up buying. If you know anything about marketing this is one of the best ways to market or sell anything. Those free apps more than pay both their developers (for the work they've put into them) and Apple (for the resources they've put into the platform, marketing, distribution, etc.). It's the same thing Amazon did for years (still does?), as well as plenty of other successful businesses. It's called a loss leader. It's a marketing cost.
No one in their right mind believes you can typically run a successful business without marketing. The rule of thumb is that most businesses cost about a third for production, a third for sales and marketing, and a third for operations, administration, and everything else. What Apple provides with the App Store is a good chunk of both the latter two categories.
Think about it. You write and build your app, you sign up to the App Store as a developer, and you upload your app. Work done. Apple does the rest, if you want. You still have the choice to do additional marketing outside the store, but your marketing points them to the store for the sale and much of the admin and operations. You can still choose to have other business operations (eg. sell Android apps), and you have to figure out how to make the income generated be more than the cost to have those business operations. That's business obviously. And of course you have administration outside of the sales process for all your business operations, but the cost proportions are still going to be the same.
Regardless of what developers think, the fact that Apple refuses to allow apps to be installed from any other sources brings incredible value to consumers, which in turn brings more value and more sales (therefore more money) to both the developers and Apple.
Anyone who thinks 30% is too much to pay for what Apple brings to the table with the App Store is clueless about business.
Indeed, that's true, but since you're resorting to name calling ("shills", "fanboys") and your other comments about Stockholm Syndrome, all suggest you're in the minority. If it was only shills and fanboys who thought Apple's policies are worth it then everyone else would leave. On the contrary the vast majority of 23 million developers on the App Stores DON'T think it's too expensive, and keep using it, and making money from it.
Indeed, more than one, but not much more than one. The vast majority of 23 million Apple developers disagree with you.
There's that "unlawful" word again. If it's unlawful then the law would put a stop to it. Sure there are investigations that go into it because some people approach the courts etc. with claims that upon investigation turn out to be bogus, and the courts/law continue to allow Apple's practices.
By all means you're welcome to express your opinions here, and we're welcome to express our disagreements, but claims that Apple's practices in this matter are unlawful show you're the one not seeing reality here, not all us "shills" and "fanboys" with "Stockholm syndrome".
Baseless claims.
Your inability to see all our points doesn't make them rubbish. Your repetition of name calling and claims of mental disorders in us (and most of the other 23 million developers with apps on the App Stores), does tend to say something about your arguments.
Apple certainly can, and does, do plenty wrong. But charging 30% for, and insisting on exclusivity resulting in security in, the App Store services, is all perfectly reasonable and valuable.
In other words, you hate them because they're rich? No, I admit I'm being cynical there. You don't hate them because they're rich. You hate them because...
... because you believe HOW they got and stay rich is not right. That's an opinion you're entitled to, but it's not shared by most of the people that count in this. 23 million developers, m/billiions of users, off the charts customer satisfaction ratings, and as I've described above, despite your misuse of all those "law" words, the laws so far haven't stopped Apple's practices that we're discussing here, despite investigations to check on them.
Your argument based on comparing a country with a free market corporation is pretty thin.
Leaving anything usually requires having somewhere else to go to. Leaving a country you don't like is in most cases almost impossible because the alternatives (other countries) have immigration laws that make moving and living there almost impossible.
Additionally, even if you could somewhere else, the cost on all levels (financially, emotionally, etc.) to uproot your entire life to go there is beyond prohibitive for most people.
In short, for most people "if you don't love it, leave" is impossible in the context of a country because of the absence of other choices.
OTOH, "if you don't love [Apple], leave" is perfectly reasonable because you do have other choices. That's the point of a free market.
All that said, you've stated you stay, despite hating their "practices" because their "products are good". And that's the answer from you and others here anytime I bring up "if you don't like it go somewhere else".
People here complain about various things with Apple. Most of those complaints come down to how much they charge for everything (in this case that 30%), and/or practices that are almost always about maintaining exclusivity.
All this stuff about Apple's Silicon pushing out Bootcamp and Windows VM's. All this stuff about ports on the MBPs. And now all this stuff about Apple locking down almost all their devices to only get apps from the App Stores. All those decisions are part of what makes Apple's products "good", for the markets they're targeted to (which is NOT everyone - Apple doesn't care about market share, they care about delivering something special to the people the other companies don't target).
But why do you think their products are good? It's a cycle. They make great products. They charge a premium for them. They impose certain restrictions (limits to backwards compatibility, exclusivity in distribution, etc), which in turn result in more income also. Then they pour a lot of that money into R&D (Apple's R&D expenses are much more than nearly everyone else), which in turn funds more great products. You can't have one (great products) without the other (premium prices and putting limits on some things).
Apple can't please everyone, but they don't want to. Apple's practices and prices and prices lead to great products and services for Apple's target audience. Apple's target audience is in so many ways deliberately the group of people that don't like all the other companies' products and practices. That group of people is small in the computer market (10% give or take) and, although larger in the mobile market, it's still less than half I believe. And that's ok.
I have no idea what you're talking about here, so can't comment. Perhaps this is legit, perhaps not. But I don't see anything in the news anywhere (despite searching) that describes Apple actually being found to be breaking any laws (relating to this topic), beyond some people's (like you) personal opinions
Sure you can. Why not? In the computer world there's plenty of reputable companies still doing perfectly well for themselves making apps that do NOT run on Mac (eg. Quickbooks), and their answer is "never, buy a PC, or use the web app".
There's absolutely nothing stopping you from excluding iOS devices from your app distribution - oh wait... except the market, which appears to be thriving - for both consumers and developers, and Apple as well of course - despite all your claims that Apple's practices are harmful.
I wonder why people want you to make your app on iOS? I wonder why people aren't willing to switch away from iOS, even if you stop making your app on it? Maybe it's because there are enough great alternatives to your app on the App Store, built by plenty of other developers that don't share your concerns enough to quit on Apple. It's a free market, and the market has voted. Your opinion is not shared by that market.
If you're so upset about Apple's 30%, and you genuinely believe that 30% fee adds NO value to your business, then charge 30% more for your iOS app on the App Store than your Android version, and let the market decide.
I'm pretty sure "don't offer choice" is a significant part of what the "walled" bit means. I've explained pretty comprehensively how "walled" adds value for the consumer - at least Apple's target consumer. You've offered no basis for your claims other than you just don't like it, and/or repeated unsubstantiated insistence that it's illegal or whatever. You mentioned something about people "repeating the same rubbish"...? I and a number of other here are not seeing anything that supports your point there.
Which textbook?
And you're right, you can't control what devices your customers use. But you can control what devices you want to support, taking all the conditions, costs, value, etc. into account. And then you can let the free market decide.
Way to miss his point completely. Yes, "tiny" isn't appropriate. But his point is still valid. Apple is a corporation owned by shareholders that deserve to make money on their investment, if possible. Apple, as with any corporation in the free market, does not have to charge based on cost. The point of a free market is you charge based on perceived value, and the market decides. Apple is allowed to make a profit, and they're allowed, both legally and morally, to make whatever profit the market is willing to support.
Needless to say, the thing that is an increasing amount depending on the price of the product is NOT apple's profit it's their revenue in this category. The profit is essentially what we're debating here. So explain to me why it shouldn't be dependent on the price of the product.
How else should they charge? Some kind of flat fee, presumably? But flat against what? There are any number of variables here: per MB for storage, per developer, per app, per download. What about in-app purchases? What about subscriptions? What about all the free apps that we've already discussed are loss lead marketing (but they still have to be paid for - to Apple and the developers - somehow).
In-app purchases and/or upgrades: Developers have the flexibility to offer their paid for services in lots of little small chunks (eg. separate in-app purchases for separate features) or one larger price for all the extra paid features. And infinite options in between. How else (other than percentage) might Apple charge that still retains that flexibility for the users and the developers.
If you're so sure Apple's got it wrong, please, for once, reasonably substantiate something you're saying. Explain ANY other business model that would give the developers and the users all of that flexibility, and be any more fair than the percentage based system. And please consider Akrapovic's comments below regarding free apps.
And while we're at it, let's look at any and every other business. Many companies price their products and services based on percentages. Car dealers doesn't slap a $5000 profit above cost on every model. They almost always slap a percentage on it. The $ value of the product profit on the $100K car is much more than the $ value of the product profit on the $20K car. And that's a very common and reasonable way of doing business.
What on earth is so unreasonable about Apple doing the same thing?
Hah. Ok. His "being deliberately disingenuous" was an effort to seek some genuine justification from you for one or two of your points. Throwing Apple's entire financial reports at us saying the equivalent of "There it is" is NOT justifying anything.
Myself and others are doing the same - trying to get you to substantiate ANYTHING you're saying with a reasonable argument that isn't filled with name calling and belittling.
However, if you can't do that, then yes, please act on this last statement at least - and don't "continue to engage with" us.
Indeed. This exactly (relating to Kyanar's and ArtOfWarfare's objections to the percentage system which results in Apple not charging developers for free apps). Quoted here because referenced above.
[automerge]1593288518[/automerge]
I see this somewhat answers one of my questions above - I saw it after posting the above. So then... how did MacWorld discover your apps?
And you're using past tense. When exactly was this?
Word of mouth? Ok. In my experience that sells 10's maybe a couple of hundred of something. That's not exactly big business. Just how far did word of mouth actually take you? Just how many sales did you actually have?
It's likely your answer to that last question is "none of your business" which is fine. But even if these questions are simply rhetorical, they kinda make a point. And there still remains the question "How did MW find you?"
If nothing else - if you were (are?) truly successful selling your apps entirely through word of mouth and digital magazine articles, then awesome. But you can't seriously believe that's typical. 23 million devs are all going to sell their apps through free marketing on MacWorld etc? Hardly. If what you're saying is genuinely true, you're an exception. The App Stores cater to everyone else.
Last edited: