How would charging $0.99 bring it into compliance? Still would be required to offer an IAP.. Still not allowed to put a link in their app directing to Hey’s website.
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.
Phil Schiller: Apple Will Not Change Decision on 'Hey' Email App, No App Store Rule Updates Imminent
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How would charging $0.99 bring it into compliance? Still would be required to offer an IAP.. Still not allowed to put a link in their app directing to Hey’s website.
BTW, this whole “reader” app category seems to be Apple creating a policy to the benefit of Netflix, Spotify and Amazon because Apple can’t afford to lose them. And if Basecamp (and by implication) Hey aren’t big money makers on the App Store why die on this hill, especially right before WWDC? Stupid.
I'm kinda on Apple's side here. The Netflix subscription is just a way to stream video. The subscription does not replace any functionality of the phone. This is a subscription to an *app*.
If you look at it from the other side, exactly how does one get an app installed on an iOS other than via the App Store?? While there is no means to side load an app (I'm not arguing the merits of this… as there are many), like you can on your Mac… for now, one could argue that Apple has brought this on themselves.
Essentially Apple is saying that if you want to make money from an iOS app you need to give them 15-30% of your revenues irrespective of what Apple is or isn't actually doing. So depending on one's perspective that's pretty extortionate especially when your app profits need to exceed 60% to simply make more than Apple does.
Not saying Apple is entirely in the wrong here but those fees are pretty high. Same goes for anyone, like Google, that charge the same for offering the same.
What about the Apple TV+ app that comes built into the phone, or the iTunes Movie Store? One could certainly argue it replaces the functionality or purpose of those.
First of all credit card fees don't cost anywhere near 30%, stop exaggerating. I would be surprised is Apple pays anything more than 1-2% fee not their credit card transaction. And chargebacks are billed back to the developer, Apple does not lose money on chargebacks.
For Enterprise customers (like Basecamp probably is), it is $399. Still not a lot, but not the same as an individual developer.
I have been given this some thought since the original story came out. If the concern is that companies will take advantage of Apple (as much as you can take advantage of a company with $1.5T market cap). How about Apple offer a new level of developer account:
Apps are still posted on the App Store
Initial PURCHASE of the App would be handled by Apple,.
Apps can use their own payment system in App
Subscription/In-App purchase must offer a tangible product or service (i.e. no Loot boxes, power-up, or feature unlocks that already exist in the App.)
Apps can offer a subscription system and be able to advertise/link in App.
Developer must meet certain requirement to be accepted (existing product, certain financial requirement, etc)
Apple can then charge either a much higher yearly fee ($10,000? $50,000) or could charge based on App submission ($10K for initial submission, $2k for each update). That should cover Apple's costs to process the App.
I bet many large companies (Microsoft, Amazon, Spotify, and maybe even Basecamp) would be willing to pay these fees to provide their users with directly links instead having their users have to find an alternative signup location on their own.
Yes, you can! Google does this with YouTube Premium
In the iOS app it’s $13.99, but everywhere else it’s $9.99
A reader app is nothing more than Apple gerrymandering their App Store rules to accommodate Amazon, Netflix, Spotify etc. because Apple can’t afford for those apps/services to not be available on the iOS platform.
I'd say those are reader apps too lol
idk to some degree I think it's just a dumb app anyway. is there even a webpage or PC app?
What about Dropbox? That’s considered a “reader” app by Apple’s standard.
Apparently, you have RCDD. Phil Schiller clearly stated why Netflix is an exception.
now that’s a stupid argumentation. It’s not like Apple is selling you a high margin 700$ phone, that users would pay much less for if it weren’t for ... apps?
Apple is one of the richest companies in the world. If you’d ask developers to pay accordingly to covering the costs, most would gladly do so since it is nowhere near the 30% they have to give to Apple now. I’d even be surprised if it were double digit.
Apple is one of the richest companies in the world. If you’d ask developers to pay accordingly to covering the costs, most would gladly do so since it is nowhere near the 30% they have to give to Apple now. I’d even be surprised if it were double digit.
This sounds like greed, on the part of the developer. Before mobile app stores, how did developers distribute their product? And if they did have some channel, did it reach as many users as through this platform? The answers to these questions points to the value that the 30% cut delivers.
If you recognize the value of a proposition, and agree to the terms, then you should not complain about what is on offer.
If you recognize the value of a proposition, and agree to the terms, then you should not complain about what is on offer.
So basically Apple’s response was change the nature of your app otherwise add IAP. Not sure how that’s reasonable. Especially considering what constitutes a “reader” app vs. something else (or this whole business vs consumer nonsense Apple was peddling the other day) is arbitrary. Now is not the time for Apple to be cocky jerks but that’s what they seem to be doing. Example here:
Can someone point to the section in Apple’s policies that state if you provide IMAP or POP access you can be treated as a ”reader” app and therefore bypass IAP?
Right, but does the YouTube app tell the customer that they can pay $9.99 if they visit YouTube.com? I don’t believe they do because that is against Apple’s rules. No links or advertising to any alternative to the IAP.
it’s an exception because it is „a reader app“. Why a reader app is allowed to pay a smaller share logically, Schiller never mentioned.
The real reason is because reader apps are media companies. The reason is that these apps are really dominated by big players since they either can produce their own content or have a large license library.
It is the amazons, Netflix and spotifys that forced apple to renegotiate. All the rest is just collateral.
The real reason is because reader apps are media companies. The reason is that these apps are really dominated by big players since they either can produce their own content or have a large license library.
It is the amazons, Netflix and spotifys that forced apple to renegotiate. All the rest is just collateral.
TechCrunch's Matthew Panzarino asked Schiller if he expects Apple to get a portion of the revenue of every business that has an app, regardless of whether it was iOS first, but he said "that's not what [Apple's] doing."
What a moronic question to ask. Does he really not understand how the mobile app distribution channel functions, and that competing channels have the same cost?
What a moronic question to ask. Does he really not understand how the mobile app distribution channel functions, and that competing channels have the same cost?
Care to point out what Phil said that makes Netflix, Spotify, DropBox, Gmail, etc an exception?
it clearly states how and why apps like Netflix, Spotify able to get around it.
Apple views as apps that display external content like music, books, and movies
So the dig Apple got in at Basecamp...I’d love Apple to tell us how much Uber and Lyft have made on the App Store since they’ve been there. But if they were gone tomorrow iOS would be in a world of hurt.
Isn't the free version of Microsoft Office on iOS unable to create and edit documents? It can only open/view Office documents as read-only. Thus it would be a "reader" unless you buy a license for Office 365. Unless something has changed?
I personally think this is the fatal flaw of the walled garden / App Store approach. If I was on a Mac or Windows and the app was offered as a download I could just install it. On my iPhone, Apple gets to determine whether or not I can install it. I can certainly understand the developer not wanting to give Apple a 30% cut. I also realize that Apple has policies and the developers know what they are. However, I also have a 1200 dollar phone on which Apple isn‘t letting me install software that I want and it is not for any security reason that they are protecting me from. Why? Because, in my view, Apple would prefer Basecamp adds 30% to the price and tricks the user into overpaying for the product while Apple also prevents the developer from letting the user know this. I think it is BS.
Last edited:
You can subscribe to Office 365 via IAP, so it's not comparable to this situation.
(Most of the features of Office are available free anyway)
Last edited:
Apple can make up whatever rules they want, the fact that they aren’t consistent with who needs to have an Apple subscription option and who doesn’t have to is enough for me to side with the little guy here.