But then assume that Hey is not invite-only and I go and buy an email account from them, a couple of months from now I decide to get the App, surely it's a reader app too? I already paid for it, all I want is the App to use with the account I already own.
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
But then assume that Hey is not invite-only and I go and buy an email account from them, a couple of months from now I decide to get the App, surely it's a reader app too? I already paid for it, all I want is the App to use with the account I already own.
That has always been there as there used to be in-app purchases but not anymore.
Netflix No Longer Offering In-App Subscription Options on iOS Devices
Netflix is no longer allowing new or resubscribing members to sign up for a Netflix subscription using an in-app purchase via the App Store, Netflix...
www.macrumors.com
It's not. Apple clearly defines a "reader app" as:
No mention of email. Another member tried to tell me that "professional databases" could include email, but obviously it doesn't, because if it did it would also include almost all the other specific categories they mention (which also use databases), so it would be redundant. If email were included, they'd say "email."
App Review Guidelines - Apple Developer
The App Review Guidelines provide guidance and examples across a range of development topics, including user interface design, functionality, content, and the use of specific technologies. These guidelines are designed to help you prepare your apps for the approval process.
Netflix does not have IAP. Neither does Amazon’s Kindle or Barnes & Noble’s Nook. Also Spotify but they do have a free ad-supported tier. How does the customer being able to browse for books on the Kindle app but having to pay for them on amazon.com make for a good customer experience? And no the answer isn’t Amazon should add IAP and give Apple a cut of every book sale.
The best option that is the most consumer friendly is to allow developers to offer their own in-app payment as an option alongside IAP. Customers who trust Apple more and/or want all their purchases/subscriptions in one place will pay the higher price and use Apple’s IAP. Those who don’t will chose a different option. And developers who don’t want to deal with payments will just offer Apple’s IAP as they do today. I don’t know how anyone outside of Apple’s executive team could be against that.
[automerge]1592696034[/automerge]
If Fastmail now has to offer IAP how did they get approved in the first place? Under what rule were they approved? And why does that no longer apply?It's not. Apple clearly defines a "reader app" as:
No mention of email. Another member tried to tell me that "professional databases" could include email, but obviously it doesn't, because if it did it would also include almost all the other specific categories they mention (which also use databases), so it would be redundant. If email were included, they'd say "email."
App Review Guidelines - Apple Developer
The App Review Guidelines provide guidance and examples across a range of development topics, including user interface design, functionality, content, and the use of specific technologies. These guidelines are designed to help you prepare your apps for the approval process.developer.apple.com
I know nothing about Fastmail. I agree that all should be held to the same rules, and the rules themselves are clear. Hey should have followed the rules, not break the rules because "Fastmail [or whoever] seems to be getting away with it." That's the reasoning of a kindergartener, not a professional developer.
Fastmail don’t HAVE to offer IAP, they are CHOOSING to do so (see their twitter). As stated many times in this thread, they were approved because you can use their service with a 30 day free trial. Hey is invitation only so right now, so there is no functionality for the average joe who downloads what they think is an email app. As stated by Apple, it is this lack of functionality that is the issue, not the lack of IAP. Apple gave a list of things for Hey which would make them compliant and they have chosen not to do.
Personally, I find DHH to be a lot more self-serving and not the scrappy underdog everyone is making him out to be.
First off, I think it’s becoming increasingly clear that email apps don’t count as reader apps, which makes sense to me.
Second, DHH never really provided a rebuttal for Apple rejecting his app. Instead, he insinuates that Apple suddenly decided to do so because they wanted to boost services revenue. Which to me doesn’t pass the smell test. Apple backs this up by clarifying that the error was made in approving his app in the first place, and even fastmail has agreed to add IAP in their next update. Likewise, gmail and spark have free tiers.
That said, I think that Apple is serious about using this incident to set precedent. The concern is that if too many people end up eschewing iTunes, you end up with an App Store that bleeds billions a year.
What’s changed, I think, is that the market is moving from paid apps to subscription-based, mainly because the former is not proving to be sustainable in the long run. It’s one thing to pay Apple 30% of a one-time $10 app. It’s another to pay Apple 30% of a $10/month subscription month after month after month. Apple does lower this to 15% in the second year, but even that may not be enough.
Lastly, DHH’s primary argument seems to be that there are so many other apps that don’t need IAP, so Hey shouldn’t need IAP either. Apple probably hasn’t done for them yet. I wonder if this will force their hand. We will see.
An argument can be made that Apple needs to make their guidelines clearer and more transparent, as well as enforce them more consistently. Apple may also want to relook their subscription cut, and allow information on the app’s home screen informing users of alternative payment methods.
DHH is clearly no stranger to playing Twitter really well when it comes to spreading outrage and getting people on his side. I remember how he insinuated that Apple was sexist for giving his wife a lower Apple Card spending limit than himself.
Either way, WWDC is Monday, I expect them to announce new App Store payment methods, and it will be interesting to see how this all pans out in the end.
But DHH is definitely not the hero the internet is making him out to be.
Paid apps can definitely be sustainable if Apple just let developers offer the option of upgrade pricing.
That would be okay, but you cannot mention the price difference or the other payment options within the app, your user just have to know it somehow without the app telling them.
TikTok (and also Douyin) is just one big example of that, which charges 30% extra for IAP vs paying via Alipay, Tencent pay, or Android pay.
Microsoft Word (iPad version) follows the rules precisely. Without any account, it is View Only. A “reader” app only. You can create content after you have an account which may be free or paid, as Microsoft offers Office For iOS for free to some.
This was already explained to you in another reply that was sent before the one I quoted, but just because IAPs are listed on the app’s page in the App Store doesn’t mean that those IAPs are still offered in the app. They don’t disappear once the app stops using them.![D80DBB2C-7D18-47E0-9040-0DED6923F4FC.jpeg]( "D80DBB2C-7D18-47E0-9040-0DED6923F4FC.jpeg")
![03436152-663D-462E-B4E0-29F283A5FCB9.jpeg]( "03436152-663D-462E-B4E0-29F283A5FCB9.jpeg")
In fact, I believe both services have not just stopped offering IAPs but cancelled existing subscriptions that were started on IAP, telling users to resubscribe on their website (saving those users money).
Prime is not digital goods, I think. I don't think you can buy Prime in the app either regardless, I can be wrong tho.
Right, you can’t begin a Prime membership in the Amazon app. I believe it would fall under digital goods/services, though, which is why Amazon won’t allow subscribing in the app.
You already can. App Version 1 was let's say $9.99, then App version 2 is, let's say $19.99. You can offer a bundle for the two for the price of $14.99. So, the effective price of an upgrade for consumer is $4.99 because whatever you spend on any portion of the bundle is credited towards the bundle pricing.
Seems like the simple route here would be for Apple to put a “Subscription Required” label next to the “GET” button in lieu of the “In-App Purchases” label.
I thought Prime is mostly for fast shipping (for my use it is), but I guess you can make a case for Prime music and Prime videos too if they are significant.
[automerge]1592708823[/automerge]
I think Apple should allow apps to be redacted in the app store while still hosting the binaries. When Hey redirects a current paying member with a valid subscription to the app store, the user can then download the app.
This would kinds be like the FBA model on Amazon.
That’s bull because Apple has no problem with ”reader” apps not having functionality until you sign in. And is the average joe going to be downloading Hey anyway? No they’re going to use Apple’s default mail app or other well known apps like gmail and outlook.
I thought this was based on screen size e.g. any screen 10” or under allows editing without a Microsoft 365 subscription.
The correct route (and one Apple will hopefully be forced to offer) is allowing alternate payment options. People who want all their charges and subscriptions with Apple can use IAP; those who are fine using the developers payment method can choose it. I pay Netflix and Amazon directly. I’m not worried about my credit card data. And my credit card offers me a service where it shows me all my reoccurring monthly bills with a website link so it’s easy to manage and cancel if necessary.
Last edited:
Oh yes, of course that’d be far preferable, but I was proposing something that would make sense if Apple refuses to compromise on allowing non-IAP payment methods.
So you’re admitting it is about money. I won’t defend DHH specifically. And I never said he was a scrappy underdog. But the fact he/Basecamp are getting a lot of support from people who are usually pro-Apple or at least Apple neutral says something. What it says to me is Apple needs to rethink it’s app store policies from the ground up. It’s not 2008 anymore. Apple’s primary objective should be to have a platform where developers can make and distribute the best apps possible. Trying to wring as much $$ possible out of developers to boost service revenues because hardware growth is stalling is not something I would consider to be insanely great.
[automerge]1592713737[/automerge]
Oh I’m convinced they will have to be forced to offer it. And it will probably start in the EU. Something I think Apple would really fight is allowing side-loading or alternate app stores. But if Apple is forced to allow alternate payment options I think the need for alternate app stores pretty much goes away.
This turned out to be one of the worst takes.
A few days later, now every dev is coming out with stories citing how the App Store screwed them.
I cannot find one dev who agrees with this.
Of course there is a money element, but it's a lot more nuanced than that.
First off, I don't think Apple is doing this specifically for the services revenue to pad their bottom line, nor is it a new development spurred on by slowing hardware sales.
Rather, the simple reality is that the iOS App Store costs a lot of money to run, most apps are either free or monetised in a manner that do not generate Apple any revenue (such as ads), and really, the key source of income for the App Store besides the $99 annual developer fee (which again, is waived for enterprise, education and governmental organisations) is really from paid apps / subscriptions.
You can argue - why then does Apple not insist on a cut when a consumer books a ride via Uber, or orders something via Amazon, or buys clothes from Lazada? I would counter that it is precisely because Apple elects not to get any money from any of these transactions that they have to stand firm on this issue because already, so many developers are moving from one-time paid apps to a subscription model, and encouraging their customers to bypass iTunes so they can keep 100% of the subscription revenue. There comes a point where Apple has to put its foot down and establish a precedent here and now (even if the timing is extremely bad, given that WWDC is the following day), lest you open the floodgates for even more developers to do so, which in turn means less money for Apple to sustain the App Store.
Yes, you will point to the elephant in the room - spotify and Netflix. This doesn't make it acceptable by App Store rules; it just means that Apple hasn't come for them. Yet. Maybe Apple never will, but it doesn't mean you throw your entire rulebook into the dustbin just because. I think this goes back to Steve Job's vision of the App Store originally being a market for paid apps, and subscriptions were more the exception than the norm.
I admit I don't know how much it costs to run the App Store, but I am willing to bet that developer fees alone don't even come close to covering it, and I suspect the App Store isn't as profitable as some critics are making it out to be.
The problem then comes as to how to charge developers "fairly", and I don't think there is one right answer to that. You could increase the developer fee, but then that will raise the bar for developers who want to release apps for the App Store, especially when you consider that Apple reaches out to young budding coders who may still be in school themselves. Exactly the opposite of what you are trying to achieve here, which is to make the App Store accessible to as many developers as possible. Not to mention that if this may cost you to lose developers to the point where you rake in even less money as a result.
Billing developers a percentage of their earnings seem like they are being penalised for their success (you earn more, you pay more, just like taxes), and some could argue that it is the rich who are subsidising the poor here. So again, you have winners and losers, just that a different party is left holding the hot potato here.
One might argue that Apple could afford to subsidise the App Store using iPhone profits, but when you have a loss leader, the temptation is arguably always there to try and cut costs wherever possible, and payroll would be the first obvious place to start, which then has a trickle-down impact on the efficacy with which the App Store is maintained and run (not saying it currently is, but it's still much better than say, the google play store).
It will be interesting to see if Apple will say or introduce any new measures during WWDC to address this particular phenomenon. I can see them relenting and allowing companies to put messages in the app informing users of alternate means of subscribing. I suppose subscription % may have to be lowered as well (perhaps to 20% or even 15%?) in the first year, rather than expecting companies to wait it out till the 2nd year?
It's not so straightforward as "Apple - greedy, Developer - victim".
If you don’t know, then why did you state a couple paragraphs up that the iOS App Store cost a lot of money to run?
Apple gets a lot of money from IAP. Just imagine all the people buying supercell gems. For operations, the storage and service itself for the store is very static. If you work in the field, you would know what that means. I don’t question that it costs money to operate, but I am doubtful Apple runs it on razor thin margins.
That's bundled pricing, not upgrade pricing. Upgrade pricing would be: App Version 1 costs $9.99 (new users). App Version 2 costs $9.99 (new users) but if you bought App Version 1, you can purchase App Version 2 for $5.99. That's upgrade pricing. That's been around even before the App Store.
