Reddit is open to discussion but they are not open to working with people with low ethics. That's why Apollo could not work out a deal, while Narwhal (and other apps) could.
It seems like they both negotiated rather poorly at the beginning and almost immediately burned some bridges.
He is free to charge whatever he wants right up until the last update. Generally people buying these things have some expectation that the fund is contributing towards future development. Here it is just straight up cash grab. Again not illegal or unethical about this particular point, just cringy. Sorta like a youtuber closing down a channel and with just ONE last video update and the whole was video was about smashing the donation button.
At no point should anyone have expected future development from these. If you want to consider souvenirs cringy, that’s up to you, but you shouldn’t project a false expectation, as that is not the correct road to take if you are going to question some one else’s sincerity.
He doesn't literally have no costs. If you want to be accurate about this. He has a server cost (for caching purposes not the actual content), backend dev that he contracts with, and then of course his own time. What people mean when they say no cost, is that he's not paying his "fair share" of costs if he were to run his own Reddit/Social network like app that would justify him his $500,000+ annual company income. So in some sense, he is "taking advantage" of a service provided. Now of course, the immediate argument that comes to me mind is "WELL OF COURSE, the API WAS FREE". Sure. There's really nothing wrong with using a free API and making millions off it. But you can't have it both ways. By that definition, there's also really nothing wrong with such free API being withdrawn with 0 notice also.
That is a very long way of agreeing with atokads point. I agree, as saying he has no costs is ridiculous. This point didn’t get into whether he should have paid for a free API, and he shouldn’t have, as he couldn’t without charitable giving to Reddit because it was free, so perhaps you can see that having it both ways really does go both ways. Why do so many posters seem to think having it both ways means having it Reddit’s way? It would have made more sense for Reddit to serve ads in their API from the start. Having the free API made sense to encourage use of it, but that was apparently too successful, so it makes sense that they are changing it to a paid API, and they are fully within their rights to roll that out in whatever manner they prefer, but most businesses would prefer to do it quietly, with no impact on their business or partners. This rollout was the opposite of what businesses usually want. Narwhal survived, but even they made the news, with the developer initially saying the app likely would not survive, and now apparently under an NDA, as he will not confirm details. So it depends on your definition of wrong, but I doubt Reddit intended or wanted to generate the news it did, as drama is seldom good for business. Changing APIs with no notice is definitely considered wrong by most businesses, but again it depends on your definition of wrong.
This is straight up false, not sure who is claiming this.
This has indeed been posted numerous times, but again we agree, this is false.
Over 3 million USD in revenue over 6 years is a rather large business. Most apps don't earn that in the entire life time. No one is calming Apollo is the next Tesla.
I do question your revenue statement, as others have also stated that he qualifies for the small developer pricing from Apple, and yet others complain he won’t release his numbers (like they have some right to see them). That said, my opinion is also that he is probably a rather large business by my perspective, but that is nowhere near being a big tech company.
Reddit is pulling API to maximism profit. Correct. But it's never at the expense of user money. For example, they don't sell them reddit coins and then later took them away while keeping the money. That's what Apollo is doing.
Apollo is refunding the subscription costs unless it is declined by the user. If Apollo is actually removing the souvenir wallpaper that users paid for, then your analogy would be absolutely correct, but I do not believe that is happening.
Hmm I think most people are claiming that he does have the money. He just doesn't want to give it back.
Plenty are claiming he already spent the money. Even you do in your next comment.
It actually is illegal to not refund the money. I'm pretty sure Apple will come collect that money. So he really shouldn't have spent that subscription if he has any common sense...
Actually, this is the main point where I have an issue; Apple will actually refund the money to the users. Then they will charge Apollo for that cost, which would be when it comes from the developer’s pocket, hopefully with Apple paying the portion they kept for commission, but I haven’t researched that part. I cannot figure out why people have such an issue with the developer clarifying that the final refund actually comes from him, as Apple is providing that refund to the user, but the eventual pocket is his. Even you are talking about how obvious it is, but you got the specifics wrong. Apple is refunding to the customers and Apollo is refunding Apple, hence his pocket statement.
I don't think thief is a reasonable label here. On the other hand, let's not pretend guilt tripping and gaslighting isn't a thing that can happen without stealing in any relationships. A girlfriend can pressure a boyfriend in giving away his money unethically with various psychological tactics without ever officially stealing a single dime. Imagine if you have not followed the news at all on Apollo, then suddenly receiving a message from the app telling you that the app is shutting down but if I were to continue with a refund the money would have to come out his pocket. What does that even mean?? Wouldn't you be confused? Of course money would come out his pocket. Where else would it be from? Would Apple covered the refunds on his behalf? Is that what he means?
If you bought something from amazon and you returned it (I've done plenty times), and if the seller emailed me that he really would appreciate me not asking for my money back since it would come out of this pocket. I would be really confused. Well of course it would. How else? The only reason you are tell me this is that you are trying to make me feel guilty and deter me from asking for a refund.
I mean how hard would it be to just give a straight up honest announcement. "Hello all, I will be refunding you all for the remainder time of your subscriptions. However, if you wish to lighten up my burden in this transition you can decline the refund _here_".
That's it. Any honest, ethical businessman would've handled it this way.
I fully agree that it would have been better if he worded it that way. I also think things could have worked out if both he and Reddit were better at negotiating, but both these things are in the past. In the present, he has already said something and some people chose to interpret it in a way they picture as evil, while complaining that others take Reddit’s actions as evil. This whole scenario is simply a lousy business transaction where two parties both executed the transaction extremely poorly. I disagree with the pillorying of both parties, simply because I cannot believe either of them intended it to go down this way. Again, two-way street. The fact that the developer is (or at least was) a member of this forum makes the disparaging remarks against him even worse, as many comments cross the well over the line of the forum rules.
This is correct, because he has no choice.
Indeed, yet some are accusing him of stealing. Strange takes.
