Spotify get round this by popping up a banner that states “Get 3 months of premium for $11.99, click to learn more”. Which then opens the Spotify website in safari and allows signup there. They’ve been doing it for years.
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.
ProtonMail Compares Apple to Mafia, Says App Was Forced Into In-App Purchases in 2018
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Spotify get round this by popping up a banner that states “Get 3 months of premium for $11.99, click to learn more”. Which then opens the Spotify website in safari and allows signup there. They’ve been doing it for years.
Fireless smoke machines are quite common in theaters and other high-drama venues...
Last edited:
Is the implication that Proton wouldn’t be complaining if Apple enforced this rule from the beginning and cut into their margins when Proton was trying to get a business off the ground?
There is only one customer at the end of this, so the 30% is ultimately passed onto me, the end user when all is said and done. I'd rather not have it. Apple is effectively monetizing access to users of its devices through its 30% cut. And people not only let them, but defend them for doing it? What kind of Bizarro-world is this?
Google does the same thing, in a round about way, by selling your data to advertisers, and are rightfully lambasted for it.
In Apple's defence, they do at least provide a service to developers as well, but its not really the SDK and the distrobution they are paying for, its the access, because devlopers don't have a choice since the App store is the only game in town to reach iOS users.
Imagine if Carriers demanded 30% of all of Apple IAP revenue, since Apple's IAP purchases are "using the Carriers network". Don't like it, use Wifi if you want to make purchases.
Thats would be crazy, yet it's exactly the same thing Apple is doing, they just happen to have the clout to get away with it (ie. set their own terms) and a userbase who lets them get away with it.
Its not far-fetched because the carriers have actually tried this, but enough people spoke up about net neutrality, but the carriers would absolutely love to charge other companies more for priority access to their customers on their networks....
If Apple is justified in taking 30%, whats to stop the Carriers from doing the same? Maybe ISPs (when they aren't also the carrier) get in on it as well? Its basically a tragidy of the anti-commons situation. It takes more than just Apple's platform to get to the end users, why doesnt everyone take a cut?
Its not like Apple gives away the phones, or the Macs required to make apps either, Apple definitely has a motive to provide SDKs and APIs to developers to make their platform more desirable than the competition.
As revolutionary as the first iPhone was, it was nothing until the App store came along. An Apple Branded feature phone. Apps turned it into a mobile computing device. As much as indie Apps need the app store, Apple needs App Developers. A lack of Apps is exactly why other platforms have died (Palm WebOS, Blackberry, MS Phone...)
Another example, take modding. Lets use Skyrim. Bethesda made modding tools available. It helped them sell games... somewhere along the way they got together with Steam and decided to charge for mods.... I mean the mods were using Bethesdas IP, and dsitributed by Steam via Steam workshop, maybe they should get a cut... the idea was rightfully laughed out of business. Yet Apple isn't. I don't understand it.
Google does the same thing, in a round about way, by selling your data to advertisers, and are rightfully lambasted for it.
In Apple's defence, they do at least provide a service to developers as well, but its not really the SDK and the distrobution they are paying for, its the access, because devlopers don't have a choice since the App store is the only game in town to reach iOS users.
Imagine if Carriers demanded 30% of all of Apple IAP revenue, since Apple's IAP purchases are "using the Carriers network". Don't like it, use Wifi if you want to make purchases.
Thats would be crazy, yet it's exactly the same thing Apple is doing, they just happen to have the clout to get away with it (ie. set their own terms) and a userbase who lets them get away with it.
Its not far-fetched because the carriers have actually tried this, but enough people spoke up about net neutrality, but the carriers would absolutely love to charge other companies more for priority access to their customers on their networks....
If Apple is justified in taking 30%, whats to stop the Carriers from doing the same? Maybe ISPs (when they aren't also the carrier) get in on it as well? Its basically a tragidy of the anti-commons situation. It takes more than just Apple's platform to get to the end users, why doesnt everyone take a cut?
Its not like Apple gives away the phones, or the Macs required to make apps either, Apple definitely has a motive to provide SDKs and APIs to developers to make their platform more desirable than the competition.
As revolutionary as the first iPhone was, it was nothing until the App store came along. An Apple Branded feature phone. Apps turned it into a mobile computing device. As much as indie Apps need the app store, Apple needs App Developers. A lack of Apps is exactly why other platforms have died (Palm WebOS, Blackberry, MS Phone...)
Another example, take modding. Lets use Skyrim. Bethesda made modding tools available. It helped them sell games... somewhere along the way they got together with Steam and decided to charge for mods.... I mean the mods were using Bethesdas IP, and dsitributed by Steam via Steam workshop, maybe they should get a cut... the idea was rightfully laughed out of business. Yet Apple isn't. I don't understand it.
One day I come up with a recipe for lemonade. I go to Whole Foods, get a large number of lemons, sugar and some empty bottles, pay the cashier $99.
I make my lemonade but realize I have no customers. I go back to Whole Foods, put my lemonade in their chiller and set up a little POS to get paid. I'm in business!
Security comes by and tells me I am on Whole Foods private property, if I want to sell here, I must sign an agreement with them just like everyone else and pay them their cut.
I respond with "It's not fair! What does it matter that I am selling on so called 'Whole Foods Property'?"
I put out a press release explaining why it isn't fair:
- Whole Foods sells their own lemonade brand - they don't need to pay themselves any cut!
- Coca-Cola gets a special deal from Whole Foods for their lemonade - I should get the same deal!
- United Way is at the door giving away free lemonade - they can do it for free and benefit from WF customers, I should also be able to!
Whole Foods is the judge, jury, and executioner of their store, and you can take it or leave it. You can't get any sort of fair hearing to determine whether it's justifiable or not justifiable, anything they say goes.
I now live in fear - Whole Foods is owned by Amazon... what if they don't sign an agreement with me? what if they don't let me put my lemonade in their chiller?
btw - the bottles I got to put my lemonade in, well they say "Whole Foods" on them... so I have no choice but to sell it in Whole Foods. Many Whole Foods customers only shop at Whole Foods so how do I access those customers otherwise?
I make my lemonade but realize I have no customers. I go back to Whole Foods, put my lemonade in their chiller and set up a little POS to get paid. I'm in business!
Security comes by and tells me I am on Whole Foods private property, if I want to sell here, I must sign an agreement with them just like everyone else and pay them their cut.
I respond with "It's not fair! What does it matter that I am selling on so called 'Whole Foods Property'?"
I put out a press release explaining why it isn't fair:
- Whole Foods sells their own lemonade brand - they don't need to pay themselves any cut!
- Coca-Cola gets a special deal from Whole Foods for their lemonade - I should get the same deal!
- United Way is at the door giving away free lemonade - they can do it for free and benefit from WF customers, I should also be able to!
Whole Foods is the judge, jury, and executioner of their store, and you can take it or leave it. You can't get any sort of fair hearing to determine whether it's justifiable or not justifiable, anything they say goes.
I now live in fear - Whole Foods is owned by Amazon... what if they don't sign an agreement with me? what if they don't let me put my lemonade in their chiller?
btw - the bottles I got to put my lemonade in, well they say "Whole Foods" on them... so I have no choice but to sell it in Whole Foods. Many Whole Foods customers only shop at Whole Foods so how do I access those customers otherwise?
Last edited:
Only apple has my credit card info. If a dev wants to add 30% to the app price, it’s worth it for that alone.
Why go back to wholefoods plenty of other stores to sell your lemonade at?
Whereas the appstore is the only place to sell ios apps
Last edited:
Fair enough... but whats the point of a cc if you are afraid to use it. probably more of a risk giving it to waiter or using it at an atm or gas bar than using it online. and even if it is compromised you arent liable...
I wonder if Proton mail removed the mention of a paid plan in the app, would Apple have back off?
Because I bought WholeFoods branded bottles as part of the $99 and made my lemonade in them. I wonder why anyone would choose to do that?
The platform on which an app is developed is purely at the discretion of the developer. If I make an iOS app, it is knowing full well I can only distribute it via the App Store and because I want to target the iOS user base that Apple has built. I do so agreeing to follow whatever rules Apple sets now or in the future.
If I don't want to do that, I can build my own OS, sell my own devices, using any other coding language... set up my own grocery store.
Obviously, it doesn't make sense to do that because I don't have unlimited capital. So I'll pay economic rent to someone who has.
This is the essence of free and competitive markets.
the free Store was one of the biggest sales argument for iPhone. We as Apple customers Pay a premium to have it - monetizing it is pure greed by Apple. And the in-app purchase model is the culmination of greed and stupidity, it’s insanely expensive to have apps nowadays.
Yes he should be able to put his app freely on the iPhone, I mean this store is ridiculous what does it really offer, what any download site in the internet doesn’t provide!
thats what a teacher called here super, but off topic 5 sit down. You would cry and not understand, 😆don’t know your age but funny some people seem to keep that ability to write endless without having a simple understanding of the matter.
Well no. The infrastructure belongs to Apple. The App Store is apples’ platform. Devs have to accept the rules or go somewhere else. Customers have to accept it’s a single source for apps. And within that all it has worked tremendously well.
Those who want the freedom of android, there’s a multitude of phones to choose from. Those who want the security and management of the iOS App Store, it’s there for the taking. Those who think they overpay for apps, android sideloading is for you.
The fees are right in-line with the industry. Apple is entitled to charge 30% for the platforms services.
You probably were in a rush. I believe you meant to put “Cook“ where you have “Yen”.
So many opinions, yet totally missing the point.
This was the issue that triggered Apple's behavior;
So ProtonMail had two options;
1. Remove that mention and continue as they were
2. Add the relevant IAP options
They choose the latter, they weren't forced at all. And they covered their costs, by passing it on to their customers.
Harrods won't allow a Product Promotion Team to come in their store and give away products for free, and at the same time advertise, go get the better version at Selfridges.
For an email company, this seems pretty daft. I'd have just given the app for free, with no mention of where to buy it, and upon signup send the customers an email which includes the upgrade option with a link to the website. Job done
This was the issue that triggered Apple's behavior;
So ProtonMail had two options;
1. Remove that mention and continue as they were
2. Add the relevant IAP options
They choose the latter, they weren't forced at all. And they covered their costs, by passing it on to their customers.
Harrods won't allow a Product Promotion Team to come in their store and give away products for free, and at the same time advertise, go get the better version at Selfridges.
For an email company, this seems pretty daft. I'd have just given the app for free, with no mention of where to buy it, and upon signup send the customers an email which includes the upgrade option with a link to the website. Job done
Funny (and sad) to watch Apple destroying itself while trying to make outlandish profits. Apple should make reasonable profits, focus on products, developers and customers. But since Tim the only focus of Apple lies on money.
Thats puzzling. I guess, once you sign up for Apples business model, you also accept terms and conditions. In or out?!
Is the rule to exclusively offer premium features through inApp purchases for all developers? Customers can easily sign up and pay for Netflix through their website for example.
Is the rule to exclusively offer premium features through inApp purchases for all developers? Customers can easily sign up and pay for Netflix through their website for example.
Everyone here frequents the macrumors forums and in all likelihood, is supporting the “outlandish profits” by buying their products.
Meanwhile as they “destroy themselves”, they sell more and more, gaining new customers and revenues continue to rise.
What is the argument here? Apple should choose to make less money? Government should limit how much money they can make?
They would if they could!
News is a tricky one though, at one point the newspaper would have been a public good of sorts. For public goods like water, electricity, internet (debated), etc - the dynamics are different.
You have no idea what you are talking about. The allegation here (if you actually read the article properly) is that Apple acted to force the company to offer paid subscription in the App Store because they saw the company was making money outside of the App Store.
Educate yourself.