Phil Schiller: Apple Will Not Change Decision on 'Hey' Email App, No App Store Rule Updates Imminent

[jdawgnoonan]

I completely get Apple's side and would be fully supportive of the, it's their platform, their rules approach.

That is if they were consistent in the way they apply the rules, but they are not.

I don’t understand Apple’s logic that it is better to trick the user into paying 30% more for a service than they should without notifying the user that there is a cheaper option. That is better than an app that you can’t use without logging in? That’s what Apple says.

 

[rjp1]

Imagine if Microsoft announced Windows would no longer run apps that don’t come from the included store and they would be taking 30% of all sales.

Would these same people be defending them?

There really isn’t a difference in a computer that you carry in your pocket and a laptop/desktop.

 

[macfacts]

"there's an app for that" more false advertising from apple.

 

[Rogifan]

Many users don’t want to pay someone else. The in-app payment processing brings people with already verified payment info together with developers. Most people don’t want to give their personal info over to yet another random company with questionable security practices. It’s a security risk, every time you give your info to someone else.

Also, Apple is providing marketing for you by having your app listed in the store where people can easily find it.

Apple could offer both options. Those who want to deal with Apple would use Apple’s IAP. But I also think developers should be allowed to pass the 30% or whatever to consumers so if you choose to use Apple’s payment processing you would pay more. But that would be your choice. Of course this only applies to digital goods. So what do these people do for physical goods? Do they not purchase anything via Amazon, Target, Starbucks etc. apps because they don’t use Apple’s IAP?

 

[konqerror]

Imagine if Microsoft announced Windows would no longer run apps that don’t come from the included store and they would be taking 30% of all sales.

They did. It's called Windows RT, and later Windows 10 S. You have to use Edge as well.

If the device was ARM, the bootloader was locked into Windows.

It was in direct response to Chromebooks and Android tablets, and adopted the same business model as Google: free OS supported by the content they sold. Because it came on extremely low-end devices, people understood this.

 

[falainber]

Many users don’t want to pay someone else. The in-app payment processing brings people with already verified payment info together with developers. Most people don’t want to give their personal info over to yet another random company with questionable security practices. It’s a security risk, every time you give your info to someone else.

Also, Apple is providing marketing for you by having your app listed in the store where people can easily find it.

Most people prefer Android to iOS. Maybe we should not have iOS at all?

 

[I7guy]

"there's an app for that" more false advertising from apple.

It’s a slogan. Got an real life example that has some “teeth”?

 

[Kierkegaarden]

I don’t understand Apple’s logic that it is better to trick the user into paying 30% more for a service than they should without notifying the user that there is a cheaper option. That is better than an app that you can’t use without logging in? That’s what Apple says.

How are they “tricking” anyone? Apple does not set the app price — the developer does. The developers whining about this want all of the benefits of the App Store distribution platform without paying the cost.

 

[I7guy]

Most people prefer Android to iOS. Maybe we should not have iOS at all?

Prefer is a strong word? “Find cheaper?”

 

[cualexander]

Imagine if Microsoft announced Windows would no longer run apps that don’t come from the included store and they would be taking 30% of all sales.

Would these same people be defending them?

There really isn’t a difference in a computer that you carry in your pocket and a laptop/desktop.

There is a $99 fee for the Windows App Store and Microsoft takes a 15% cut for in-app purchases, actually. Apple doesn’t allow apps to be sideloaded from the web, Android does.

 

[Naaaaak]

Another way to look at this situation:

Apple sells hardware at their own stores as well as other retail stores. They would presumably make more profit by selling the hardware at their own stores, so why do they sell at other retail stores? It is because they see the value in, and are willing to pay the cost for, the additional distribution channels.

In the case of the software, the developer has a direct relationship with Apple, so there are no other expenses besides the 30%. This is reasonable when you compare it to traditional manufacturer - distributor - broker - retailer setups.

Apple is a duopoly with Google in the mobile space.

The App Store is not optional on iOS. It's the only way to distribute a product. There's no reasonable way for direct-distribution and sale. Asking users to jailbreak is unreasonable/unsupported. If you distribute on iOS, you're at the mercy of Apple's whims. You have no choice but to pay the 30% fee, too.

This isn't a different or additional distribution channel -- it's the only one.

"Well they built the platform, they make the rules" the bootlickers say.

Except these rules are inconsistently enforced, change on a whim, and lawyers can't even determine what they mean in a lot of cases. There's no way to know if what you build will pass review until you build it (never mind if it will be successful). This is huge risk. Apple also doesn't compensate your lost dev cost if they reject it. It's been this way for a decade.

Everything is subject to App Store review. Apple determines winners and losers. Apple has destroyed a ton of businesses and ideas through inconsistent policies and review. Apple also has a history of disallowing some apps and competing with them later. Or making competitors pay the 30% fee while letting others slide. In no way is this good for users, let alone developers.

The irony of this is that Apple needs developers, but the App Store treats them like cattle.

If you were limited to the default Apple apps out of the box, would you pay the premium you do for iPhone? Would your iToy be as useful as it is?

 

[citysnaps]

As one whose job is to design/deploy/maintain large scale data center infrastructure, it is by no means a fixed cost. During peak app download times (usually Christmas time to new years) and as demand trends up and down throughout the year, Apple is spinning up and spinning down cloud infrastructure to match demand and save money when possible. Those costs are a function not just of the number of apps in the app store but also the number of active devices around the world, as the number of devices grow so does the demands on the infrastructure.

Also few folks seem to be mentioning the human cost of the app store. I don't know how many people Apple employs on the App review teams, the Xcode Development teams, or on other of the various teams (legal, phone support, etc.) to that work to support the App store, but let's say it's 5,000 people (out of the over 139,000 employees they have) and guessing a fully loaded salary of $300K (salary + benefits + insurance, this is probably a conservative number for California) that's ~$1.5B a year just in human costs.

Not saying Apple still isn't making a lot of money off the App store it's hard to know how much for sure without seeing the real internal numbers, but I think there is a lot more cost that goes in to it than most people think yet that doesn't stop them from judging how much is too much of a fee to charge developers (who by and large seem fine with it).

I think your loaded salary costs also need to have some amount of overhead + G&A, and of course profit, added as well. And supports your view even more.

So many people think costs are just salaries.

 

[Bluetoot-]

Apple's App Store policy basically pushes you to ads because their processing charge for payments is so insanely high.

Which is why their stance on privacy makes sense: ads become worth less, so you want to be on the platform. But if you want to be on the platform, Apple needs to make that cut. The real existential threat to Apple is people falling out of the ecosystem.

I haven’t seen any numbers lately but it might be fair to say consumers are becoming indifferent to the Apple ecosystem. Especially after this pandemic; what are people going to be really excited about? The newest Apple whatcgamacallit is a phone design from a couple of years ago (it’s a good phone, I’m certain). Not bad but not exciting. This might end up being a difficult year for a company like Apple. All depends if Apple can make an interesting case for being loyal to their ecosystem.
Which, lets be real, iPhone sales will remain strong for years to come and I highly doubt they’re going anywhere.

 

[s66]

Schiller says that this is not an ideal app experience for users.

Talk about an understatement.

You download an app that promises something that you you're obviously somewhat interested in
Then you get a login prompt and that's it.
Even the help tells you nothing at all but that you need an account.

I suppose 99% of those who try it from there will just delete the crap immediately.
(actually even demanding an account creation makes me bail out virtually instantly - too much hassle, too much risk for my privacy - it would need to be something I want badly before I even create an account)

I understand they want apple to take less money, but to take that out on the users is just outright evil and bad for business. Discuss with apple if you feel you can win (you won't win against a really big company if you're small - fact of life), don't hold your potential new users as a hostage cause they will never stand by your side if you hurt them in your war with a company they like.

Those who already use the service might not mind, but getting new customers isn't going to happen in this manner.

Whomever they have as management really needs to learn there's a cost to acquire customers and that esp. recurring paying customers are the interesting kind to have. If they can't see beyond their own belly button to know the app store is a great way to market your stuff and get people hooked on your product for what's essentially going to be far less than any other way you can advertise your stuff (ever seen what a TV ad costs ?), then they're simply not worthy.

 

[jonblatho]

How are they “tricking” anyone? Apple does not set the app price — the developer does. The developers whining about this want all of the benefits of the App Store distribution platform without paying the cost.

Basecamp would likely be more than happy to distribute Hey on its own if it meant they didn’t have to use IAP. They certainly have the means and existing customer base to pull it off. As of today, that’s not possible because Apple requires you to sell through the App Store, and they require you to use IAP if you sell through the App Store. No other platform does this specific combination. None.

 

[dgdosen]

The contents of Apple's reply are online...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1273719726196187136

I guess Apple is saying the whole isn't greater than the parts?

 

[jonblatho]

Whomever they have as management really needs to learn there's a cost to acquire customers and that esp. recurring paying customers are the interesting kind to have.

I’d argue that Basecamp, the creators of Hey, know a thing or two about that since they’ve been selling Basecamp directly for many years now.

 

[jdawgnoonan]

How are they “tricking” anyone? Apple does not set the app price — the developer does. The developers whining about this want all of the benefits of the App Store distribution platform without paying the cost.

Because they give the developer the advice to overprice the app and do not let the developer provide any information whatsoever that there may be another way to pay. I consider that to be tricking the user.

That said, I would not have an issue with it if I also had the choice to go download the app from the developers website and install it on my 1200 dollar phone.

 

[konqerror]

As of today, that’s not possible because Apple requires you to sell through the App Store, and they require you to use IAP if you sell through the App Store. No other platform does this specific combination. None.

Xbox, Playstation, Switch, and any Smart TV.

Further, while it's not impossible to sideload on any Amazon Fire device, it's (intentionally) way too difficult for a consumer.

 

[BarrettF77]

Apple policies are hypocritical to say the least. Apple does the same thing with android and gives the option to get apple
Music externally to what google wants a cut of.

Apple is wrong, they are greedy, and I made the choice to start phasing out future products in my household. They simply don’t hold up like they used to.

Currently dismantling my army of HomePods from Apple in favor of Sonos. Got a windows laptop for work rather than put it on my older Mac.

their software over the last year has been plain awful and no real innovation. Sure the XDR and Mac Pro are cool. But they are not consumer products but more for businesses.

Next Monday will be interesting to see what changes they bring about. Never thought I’d see the day I was over Apple but I’m pretty much there. Shady @$$ hypocritical company.

 

[hendrilei]

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.

Well ... imho, if we ignore the “applerule’s fact”

Some apps/developer/company, needs iphone’s user market to make money

Apple needs some mainstream apps (netflix, google, microsoft, or whatever they called), to keep their user

So, apple “pay” with “giving the exception rule for the mainstream” and smaller developer “pay” with “cut” to use apple’s market

 

[I7guy]

Apple is a duopoly with Google in the mobile space.

The App Store is not optional on iOS. It's the only way to distribute a product. There's no reasonable way for direct-distribution and sale. Asking users to jailbreak is unreasonable/unsupported. If you distribute on iOS, you're at the mercy of Apple's whims. You have no choice but to pay the 30% fee, too.

This isn't a different or additional distribution channel -- it's the only one.

"Well they built the platform, they make the rules" the bootlickers say.

Except these rules are inconsistently enforced, change on a whim, and lawyers can't even determine what they mean in a lot of cases. There's no way to know if what you build will pass review until you build it (never mind if it will be successful). This is huge risk. Apple also doesn't compensate your lost dev cost if they reject it. It's been this way for a decade.

Everything is subject to App Store review. Apple determines winners and losers. Apple has destroyed a ton of businesses and ideas through inconsistent policies and review. Apple also has a history of disallowing some apps and competing with them later. Or making competitors pay the 30% fee while letting others slide. In no way is this good for users, let alone developers.

The irony of this is that Apple needs developers, but the App Store treats them like cattle.

If you were limited to the default Apple apps out of the box, would you pay the premium you do for iPhone? Would your iToy be as useful as it is?

With tens of thousands of apps there might be some cases where some view the review as inconsistent. Not having a perfect system, doesn't mean it doesn't work the way it should for the majority. And it's no secret, you're biggest customers sometimes get favorable treatment; works that way in every business catering to customers.

Having an app on the app store at one point, I disagree about the "cattle" comment. The metrics and management the app store has was worth it.

The perennial critics will always criticize. Much of the criticism here, I'd venture a guess never had an app on the app store.

 

[Apple_Robert]

If Hey doesn’t like the terms, they can go elsewhere. You don’t go to another person’s house and dictate what you and others will do.

Hey wants to benefit from Apple’s infrastructure without cost or responsibility. Apple is within their rights to tell Hey to go pound sand.

 

[I7guy]

Apple policies are hypocritical to say the least. Apple does the same thing with android and gives the option to get apple
Music externally to what google wants a cut of.

Apple is wrong, they are greedy, and I made the choice to start phasing out future products in my household. They simply don’t hold up like they used to.

Currently dismantling my army of HomePods from Apple in favor of Sonos. Got a windows laptop for work rather than put it on my older Mac.

their software over the last year has been plain awful and no real innovation. Sure the XDR and Mac Pro are cool. But they are not consumer products but more for businesses.

Next Monday will be interesting to see what changes they bring about. Never thought I’d see the day I was over Apple but I’m pretty much there. Shady @$$ hypocritical company.

Just wondering what this post has to do with thread topic? If android and windows work better for you, and you dislike Apple but like google better, then you follow your requirements.

I personally (along with our families) already have an Apple and Microsoft environment and it's been that way for year, and have no plans for ever going android. But that's us.

 

[Naaaaak]

The contents of Apple's reply are online...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1273719726196187136

I guess Apple is saying the whole isn't greater than the parts?

Apple's raising a giant middle finger to devs a week before they are about to court them to develop for their platforms.

If the ARM Mac is a Crap Store-only product like the iToys it's DOA.