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.
Deliveries App Loses Functionality as Shipping Companies Refuse to Participate
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yep, companies these days really are failing at 2 of the 3 “S’s” of product design: simplification and standardization.
(If anyone is interested, the third “S” is specialization… pretty sure that’s not a problem for companies).
This is my take too to be honest. Looking at Parcel it supports services Deliveries does not. Either the devs for Deliveries couldn’t keep up or perhaps they had set themselves a mandate of only ever using an API where other apps have the infrastructure and willingness to resort to scraping where APIs aren’t available. Thing is, I don’t really care how it works on the backend if it works
Reading between the lines and knowing that most or all postal services do not require authentication to load a web page as long as you have a tracking number, the lack of APIs is a problem but it doesn’t have to be a complete show stopper. Rather, it sounds like their move to subscription probably hasn’t got them enough revenue to maintain the apps for cases where APIs aren’t available which in turn means more laborious and costly (since they likely need to do server side polling to track updates for users) methods to extract the information.
I’d be surprised if not wanting to deviate from API support was at least in part because scraping and supporting of push notifications potentially requires more backend infrastructure to support, alongside the effort to configure the scraping.
It’ll be interesting, but contrary to those saying Parcels will have the same issue, I’d say that’s not a foregone conclusion. Until postal services put authentication barriers on their tracking pages there’s other ways to get this data and I suspect Parcels already doing exactly that which is why they support services Deliveries never (or for a very long time) has such as Australia Post. Parcel will likely get a subscriber influx too after this announcement from Deliveries which can only help them.
It’s a shame as I liked Deliveries, but at the same time my legacy purchase did what I needed and they didn’t support Australia Post which drastically reduced its utility and would likely prevent me ever subscribing to the app. Parcels supporting Australia Post has me considering subscribing to that app.
Last edited:
What’s strange about the FedEx tracking breaking is that FedEx doesn’t charge to use its APIs: https://www.fedex.com/en-us/integration/faq.html
So maybe Deliveries was scraping instead of using APIs and something changed.
So, Spotify and Apple music should be free?
Should fail? Wow. What a horrible take on the situation. And then you wonder why people don’t do things the way you think they should. You expect a developer to pony up all this money and put all this time into something that you think should fail.
Conversely, it’s not reasonable for you to expect one person to author and support multiple apps. I guess you think only big software firms should be writing apps, not any startups. But that’s not reasonable either.
* You expect a developer to make multiple apps (thereby increasing their development and support cost)
* You then expect said developer to accurately guess all future cost...forever...on each app as if they had some sort of crystal ball and charge one single lifetime price to cover it all.
* And you expect them to do all that, put out all that expense and effort, for a product that you think SHOULD fail.
That’s not reasonable at all.
This response is how I know you don't actually read. They said, "Not everything needs to be a subscription."
Get off your horse and think about this for a moment. Why is that a horrible take? Most businesses fail. Yeah, I expect them to carry 100% of the risk because they see 100% of the reward. Why should I pay them before the product is done? Not wanting to pay for unfinished products is part of the reason so many people hate DLC. DLC, IAP, seasons, and subscriptions are different ways of getting people to prepay for a product you haven't yet made. It's gross.
Not everyone can succeed, and not everyone who goes into business does so with good intentions. If all a developer wants to do is toss something on the app store and hope people pay for it, they deserve to lose. They don't though, because software development - unlike most other businesses - has little risk for the little guy. But if they put in the effort, and do the business side as well as the product side, they can put together something amazing and find exactly the right price for it.
Yes, it is. Show me one app that has regular updates and I will show you 10 that haven't pushed out a new feature in over a year, and another 10 that haven't pushed any update out in over a year. Anyone can write software, but that doesn't mean everyone should be trying to profit from it. Good software is hard, and many work hard at it, so why should we insult them by giving people a free pass for not doing it well. Why is ok for software to be sold with misleading or missing features? Why can hard work be undercut by scam developers who won't be around in six months after doing 60% of the work, just so they could undercut real developers?
Yes. Because most developers aren't continually adding to it. Bug fixes are not enough. They need to be expanding the functionality of the app.
Nope. They should do the legwork to figure out if the app can be sold at a price that allows them to finish the app. If they can't do that then no, they shouldn't expect to profit from it. If you can't finish the app before you sell it then you are moving the risk to the customer.
This is the part where I need you to really focus on reading comprehension. Most businesses fail. If they do all the work, and they recognize that their software can be built for less than what they can sell it for, then they will be more likely to be part of the group that succeeds.
It's totally reasonable: Idea -> Business plan -> Risk assesment -> Risk -> Profit or Ruin.
What we need to do is bring balance to the industry. Right now the risk is way to low. Any kid can make an app as a school project and toss it on the app store. That's gotta stop. We need a way to lower payouts over time. Say, 30% the first year but then after that, it needs to drop in price unless the developer can demonstrate they have improved the function. Have users submit bug reports to Apple. If the bug fixes are resolved within a timely period commissions are refunded to the customer until the fix occurs. If no fixes occur within 12 months the source code is released.
Not wanting to reward everyone doesn't mean I don't want to pay for software. I am more than happy to pay. But that means I expect completed software. I don't want to Patreon every app on my phone hoping that some of them finally get that one feature they came up with correct.
Last edited:
I would contact them for a refund and if they didn't do so promptly I would consider it a scam and contact my credit card and report the charge. They either sold a service knowing they didn't have the rights in place or they sold a product and decided it was too expensive to actually deliver.
Could well be that Apple does something similar. They have the influence to make deals and build relationships. These sorts of apps are more about understanding the needs of service providers and selling them on the idea that your app is a benefit.
Quite hard to do when they already have their strategies and R&D timelines. It often requires them to do something counterintuitive. Even Apple struggle to be convincing at times but they can get it done.
Not a money spinner though, just a nice USP if they can have it realised as an iOS feature.
Quite hard to do when they already have their strategies and R&D timelines. It often requires them to do something counterintuitive. Even Apple struggle to be convincing at times but they can get it done.
Not a money spinner though, just a nice USP if they can have it realised as an iOS feature.
Just deleted my Deliveries app and switched to Parcel. They way Parcel implements tracking FedEx means it will always work as long as FedEx sends email notifications.
@sspinball THANKS for the links! This solves my issue with Deliveries permanently.
You'd have zero chance to dispute after a year. Zero. And you'd get no love from any courts because EULAs protect against just such an issue.
And how would it be a scam is it fully worked for a year but external factors broke it?
This is the problem, you seem to want your cake and eat it too without understanding the ramifications of what you suggest.
Yes, and UPS' "Follow My Delivery" is a joke. It is nothing like Amazon which shows GPS data on your delivery once is near you.
UPS shows a truck on a map but in small typeface says that it means nothing and the location of the truck on the map has no basis in reality.
Seems that paying for an API is not the issue.
Phone Contacts
Main: (901) 369-3600Customer Service: (800) 463-3339
Last edited:
Why do you defend disreputable businesses?
It doesn’t matter if it works for a year. They sold it as indefinite. If external factors broke it then that means they sold something they didn’t have the rights to sell. Even if I didn’t get my money back everyone could rest well knowing this person can’t make any more apps.
It doesn’t matter how much they steal. I don’t care if it’s $50 or $5, or $0.05.
Last edited:
Sounds like some people at the shipping companies got upset over the subscription model Deliveries went with and wanted to stick it to the devs. ?
Have fun with those rose tinted glasses of yours.
Let's look at the UK for starters. Section 75 instantly means you're out because coverage starts at £100. That $49.99 ain't gonna cut it. Also doesn't help with debit cards.
Knowing that that we'll have to go to charge backs. Oh dear - 120 window between purchase and claim kills that opportunity.
And that's before we even look at software coverage.
Conformity in the EU is the expectation something conforms at purchase. If a year later it doesn't then...well good luck!
Looking at the US, protections seem to max out at 90 days and specifically exclude computer software.
So remind me again how this works for you?
Also, show me where I've defended this App. If you read you'll see I did not migrate to the subscription app.
I don't live in the UK and I don't use debit cards for digital purchases. Too many bad actors online. No one here is talking about the way it is. We are talking about the way it should be. The way it is is broken. You described the EU well, everything is stacked against the customer.
What does the 120 window thing mean? Do you mean requesting via Apple? If so, then we need to get that extended. How is there no way for users to financially hurt a company that brought damages on the end user? Some 40 pages document consumers "agree" to prior to using the app shouldn't include a "LOLZ no damage intended clause." The intention should be irrelevant. All that should matter is if it occurred.
Stop looking for ways to protect criminals and realize if you care about giving customers choice then you will support policy that makes it harder for developers to profit from software. That's what we really need.
If you sell a product that relies on data other people produce then you need to get a contract in place that compensates your customers if that data becomes inaccessible. If you don't do that then you need to be held personally liable for the lost revenue AND the impact of lost services on every customer affected. If you release a product and it's not done customers should have the right to a full refund up to one year after the product is finished. Finished means it functions at all times without any additional updates needed. That will be really hard, and it should be.
All you have done is convince me that every country needs more software reform. Get rid of licenses. Hold people, not companies, financially responsible. Put the burden of development back on the developers. These people can release the software as open-source, and avoid all of this. But if their goal is to profit from the software they need to be held accountable for the quality and reliability of the product they are selling. No more get rich schemes.
Again, good luck in your fantasy world.
You'll never change the basics of the EULAs. Software, like music and other things will only ever be licensed. That will never change.
And even more good luck in convincing anyone that software companies should be liable a year later after sale that they should be beholden to aspects beyond their control.
I can only guess you've never written and supported software yourself either.
Meanwhile you've argued all this and not added 2+2 - that a $4.99 subscription over that year would incur considerably less risk than that $49.99.
You want to create a problem and have no desire to understand the ramifications of what you've created.
I'm a pragmatic person - I get this. Idealists though tend to dream of perfect world's that'll never happen.
And the fact you've now called developers in this situation "criminals" goes to further demonstrate that the weaknesses of your position.
What do you call people who sell things that don't work or they don't own? Entrepreneurs?
The part you keep ignoring when it comes to $4.99 vs $49.99 is that they are different products. The $49.99 is the one where they did everything correctly, signed deals to ensure they had data access and completed the product before releasing it. The risk is lower because there are policies in place that the user can read and understand prior to spending any money. The $4.99 is a higher risk because it offers no such protection, and as we saw in the Deliveries app, functionality can break at any time and there is nothing that can be done because the developer didn't put in the minimum effort upfront to protect their business model.
The problem already exists. Deliveries is simply another example of what happens when software goes rotten. It's an opportunity for reform. The need for software companies to be held liable comes from the fact that they often sell products that haven't been completed. It's so commonplace we accept it. Consumers need to push back and demand accountablity.
If it worked at time of sale, then it worked.
If it used publicly available APIs that were subsequently shut down then how's that the developers fault?
Either way, I'd never ever call the developers "criminals". That's an emotive term to use when someone doesn't understand the practicalities of software.
Says who? You? Who made you the defacto source of software development? In my 35+ years in the business I've never head of such preposterous nonsense as that.
You protest way too much while singularly ignoring some grim realities.
We've already seen how far detached from reality your desires are: you claimed:
which I clearly proved is not feasible, your desires notwithstanding.
And then we come to this absolute gem:
WHAT????
Are you serious? The EU is famously known for having more consumer protection than anywhere else! Not saying it's perfect, but I'd argue that you'll not find a jurisdiction more consumer friendly than the EU anywhere else in the world.
That's not enough. There is an expectation that products will continue to work after it is purchased. Just because it's software doesn't absolve it from that.
Because they didn't secure rights to the API. Make the software free and do it as a project of love. As soon as you charge money for it the rules change.
No. It's a term for someone who broke the law. By selling the product they implied they secured the rights to do so.
We made the decision when we discussed subscription vs upfront costs. I was very clear in laying out the expectation.
Offering a refund is totally feasible. Either Apple holds payment until a time period passes, say one or two years. Or, an individual, not a company, is attached to the account, and that person is held responsible for providing refunds.
Give me one example of an EU developer going to prison for selling broken software or failing to provide a service they promised? Software consumer protection is nowhere near other businesses. In the US they don't hold developers accountable for the products they release. It sounds like they don't hold them accountable in the EU either.
It's ok that we disagree.
You think developers have a right to make money, even if their product doesn't work. Because it's hard they should pass the risk to someone else.
I think good software should be rewarded and bad software punished. As we have seen, the market has failed to do this on its own.
At this point, there is nothing more to say. We disagree on the fundamentals. Claiming you have so much experience makes me think you are part of the problem. You are defending the status quo, likely because it benefits you. So please, lets just drop it.
Last edited:
Oh I missed this gem as well there were so many in your replies).
It seems that you do not understand the legal definition of “damage” - and that’s horribly important since your entire set of posts here seem to want to enforce more legal requirements on software.
To be damaged, one has to insure some sort of consequential loss. Compensatory damages revolve around actual sub-sequential loss incurred by the consumer. Let’s take this app as an example. You the consumer would have to prove in a court of law that you purchased the app for the single purpose of the loss of functionality and that said loss of functionality has caused you financial harm.
Over a $50 app!!!
Punitive is even harder to get: You’d have to show the developer deliberately and maliciously performed an action to cause you harm. And you’ll probably never be able to get punitive damages over a cell phone app.
No, that’s your imagination. You claiming something should be so doesn’t make it even remotely legal. The legal expectation is that it works on purchase. If it fails a year later then you’re on your own.
Consider this, you buy an app and 6 months later the operating system changes that breaks the app. Do you now demand the developer make changes to the app to make it work?
If so, why? Under what legal basis? They sold you a license to use the app at the time. If YOU then upgrade the operating system that breaks the app then that’s ALL on you - not them.
This is why we have EULA’s.
Imagine if the change fundamentally broke the app beyond repair. Then what? You now expect the developer to just refund you your money? How is that fair on the developer? What if the developer is no longer in business? What if they’re a sole developer who’s now ill?
In your apparent zeal to create this imaginary world of perfection, you fail to grasp some basics in life.
What? That statement doesn’t make any sense. If it’s a publicly available API then what ‘rights’ does one have to secure? And what if they DID “secure rights” but then the vendor withdrew them, or shut down. Then what? In your dreamworld you the consumer should be the only one protected with FULL refunds - “just because” I guess.
There’s one hell of a difference between tort (civil and) and criminal law. This is tort law. Breaking contracts does not automagically make it criminal. Again, this is you creating definitions that you feel bolster your position, despite the fact they are 100% wrong.
No, YOU made that determination. ”We” never made any decision. Yet again we have you defining invalid terms then using them to continue your baseless arguments. If you can’t start with a factual basis then you’ll never get anywhere.
100% infeasible. Not only do you not understand how software development works but you know expect that you should be able to buy and app but the developer niot get paid for a FULL year! What kind of nonsensical poppycock is that!
And what if you don’t buy through Apple? There’s a push to remove Apple from being the defacto payment provider on iOS. And credit cards specifically exclude Software for a good reason: it’s monumentally difficult to prove loss.
You seem to have this idea that you can wave a magical wand and create this perfect world that is totally unworkable.
Again, this is you not understanding tort law and criminal law.
Please do yourself a favor and read up the fundemtnal differences between tort and criminal law. You’re doing yourself no favors with these replies.
Here’s one source for you: https://opinionfront.com/understanding-difference-between-tort-criminal-law
All I hear are the cries of someone trying to defend their kingdom.
All you READ. And you apparently haven’t read it all because you can’t defend your apparent confusion between criminal and tort law. Nor can you defend your claims that Apple (or A.N.Other payment provider) should sit on your payments for at least a year before paying the developer - just because you think that’s fair.
You‘ve also failed to defined what “secured rights” means (this was also YOUR TERM). In fact, you’ve failed to defend most of your replies.
It’s clear from your posts that you seem to lack the basic understanding of so many aspects of this and, with this being your reply, it also demonstrates you have no defense.
And this is not “my kingdom”. This is REAL LIFE and FACTS.
And again - I do NOT use this app. I stopped when they went subscription.