or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple rejecting apps with Flattr micro-payment integration
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple rejecting apps with Flattr micro-payment integration

post #1 of 53
Thread Starter 
Social micro-payment company Flattr was dealt a blow on Monday as it was announced that Apple will be rejecting any app that integrates the donation service as it violates App Store terms and conditions regarding third-party payments.

Problems began in early May when Apple rejected an update for the popular podcast manager Instacast, citing the app's new integration with Flattr which allowed users to donate money with the click of a button, notes TechCrunch.

Flattr is designed to allow in-app monetary support for content creators who would otherwise go unfunded, like podcasters or video makers. In the system, users allocate a specified amount of money to a pool at the beginning of each month and when they see a Flattr button on any site or app, they can click to donate. Flattr counts the number of clicks at the end of the month and disperses the pooled money evenly.

In the Instacast integration, users could click to "flattr" or donate to a podcast creator after an episode was completed. Another option, called "auto-flattr," allowed users to automatically donate when a podcast began playing.

A Monday post on Flattr's blog details why Apple found the system to be in contempt of certain iTunes App Store regulations, starting with the May 6th rejection of Instacast HD. App Store guideline 21.2 states: The collection of donations must be done via a web site in Safari or an SMS.

While Flattr is no doubt in violation of the rule, the company along with Instacast maker Vemedio appealed the ruling claiming that adhering to Apple's guidelines would inhibit the functionality of the system. In a letter to Flattr Apple notes, ?we understand that directing your user outside your app may not be the user experience you prefer to offer your users. However it is a common experience in a variety of iOS apps.?

The appeal was ultimately shot down on May 24 and Vemedio had to disable Flattr to push critical bug fixes through the App Store.

Flattr
Flattr staff mulling options after a call with Vemedio. | Source: Flattr blog.


It is possible that Apple is protecting themselves from possible lawsuits like those seen last year regarding children purchasing in-app game currency without parents' knowledge. A more likely reason to reject Flattr integration is that the service competes with Apple's own in-app payment system, which nets the company 30 percent of each transaction.

The micro-payment company said the May 24th ruling is "not the end," and notes that Vemedio will continue talks with Apple alongside Flattr's own efforts to test new in-app integrations.
post #2 of 53

Use Kickstarter. Problem solved. Who needs yet another intermediary?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #3 of 53

GOOD. I applaud Apple for disallowing micropayments.

 

Quote:
The micro-payment company said the May 24th ruling is "not the end,"…


Apple's terrified, I'm sure.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #4 of 53
What people don't eat is that all payments through Apple's systems get knocked down 30% for Apple's share. They are forcing you not to go that way so the full donation goes to the intended party without hassle
post #5 of 53

Apple is being sued by the world and its wife (and grandmothers) because they have a big pile of cash.

 

If they allow Flattr, they'll be on the end of a class action / anti trust suit from those who were forced to remove external in-app payments, not to mention the parents who can't control their kids.

 

If they don't allow Flattr, they'll be called a big greedy bully.

 

When you're dammed if you do and dammed if you don't, you do as you will.

 

-Najinsky

post #6 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

What people don't eat is that all payments through Apple's systems get knocked down 30% for Apple's share. They are forcing you not to go that way so the full donation goes to the intended party without hassle

It does get a bit sticky in some instances. You can't even have a link to a website inside your app if any where on that website there is a way to buy something. Sometimes I think they go too far but where do you draw the line?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #7 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

It does get a bit sticky in some instances. You can't even have a link to a website inside your app if any where on that website there is a way to buy something. Sometimes I think they go too far but where do you draw the line?

I thought that's how Amazon app works for buying books.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #8 of 53

I agree that donations shouldn’t go through Apple, even if Apple is providing something for that 30% cut. Apple seems to agree too—and luckily iOS apps support two methods of payment, both officially endorsed by Apple:

 

1. IAP, which is a single system with rules enforced by Apple right down to the OS design in some ways. That is the very reason users can trust this method. It always works the same, it always has the same security, and is entirely controlled from the central Settings app, where you can even disable/enable it at will.

 

2. Second-best: pay on the web, in your browser, and Apple takes no role in controlling anything. These are the same ways that people pay online all the time on an “old style” computer. They still work on iOS too. This is second-best for users (ease of use), second-best for developers (sometimes; because users prefer the IAP route) and second best for Apple too! But it’s an important option to have. eBooks are one example of why (this is how you buy a Kindle book and read it on your iPad). Donations are another example. Plus, people are just plain used to buying stuff in web pages, PayPal, etc. It’s good that Apple keeps this open, in keeping with their philosophy of “anything goes” in the browser, but not in native code.

 

So why does Apple push #1 as the preferred option, keeping #2 separated from apps and not even allowing a direct web link from a button in the app? (A rule I assume is true even for donations.) Why can’t web payment be integrated directly into an app, even right inside a webkit view? It would make #2 more polished, and users would like it.

 

There are two answers, both true:

 

1. Apple wants their 30%. They invented and constantly develop/enhance the platform, the dev tools, the store, and the software-update mechanism. They host your app internationally for multiple markets, they promote it, and they pay for everything from customer service to bandwidth to making sure the right tax is charged each region to credit card transaction fees.

 

But that’s still not a huge part of Apple’s income, and it’s not core to how they make money. They make money by giving users a good experience. So the more important reason is:

 

2. If there’s only ONE way to pay money inside iOS apps, that’s a BETTER user experience. We may not like the “idea” of limits and rules, but at the end of they day, iOS users are very comfortable with the single trusted IAP solution built into iOS. Imagine if every app had its own unique way to pay... it would be an incredible pain! You’d never know what to trust, and you’d never know what the steps of the process are supposed to be. We techie forum-goers might not all mind (although I would) but most of the world isn’t in our niche—and they’d mind. Or they simply wouldn’t do it—they’d buy fewer apps and fewer IAPs, by far. (Which in turn means that having one single system that works well is good for developers!)

 

Simplicity would be lost, and simplicity matters. To users, not just to Apple. Apple makes their real money by making things work well, not by a 30% cut of micropayments.

 

(P.S. That’s one deeply moving photo of some serious mulling. You don’t see mulling like that every day.)

post #9 of 53
Apple provides the ecommerce solution for the developer:
• Bandwidth
• Servers
• Billing system to customers
• Payment system to developers
• APIs to make it all happen seamlessly to user
• Marketing to drive users to the AppStore
• The iOS development kit, avail for free

In return, Apple asks for 30% vs a standard online retailer's 50% cut. This is a business

Cheers !
Cheers !
Reply
Cheers !
Reply
post #10 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I thought that's how Amazon app works for buying books.

I thought Amazon had to remove the button that sent users to the Amazon kindle website.

I was thinking of the recent Dropbox fiasco as well.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #11 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman619 View Post

In return, Apple asks for 30% vs a standard online retailer's 50% cut. This is a business
Cheers !
which is fine when you are talking about a good or service. But with donations there's possibly laws that would be violated by Apple bing in the middle of it, especially with that 30%. Which could be why they want to be left out of it completely
post #12 of 53
Oh really.. Look at how united way and other similar "charities" work. Only a 30 % cut would make most of the charities that united way funds happy.
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #13 of 53

Somebody please file a restraint of trade lawsuit against Apple. this is getting stupid.

post #14 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman619 View Post

Apple provides the ecommerce solution for the developer:
• Bandwidth
• Servers
• Billing system to customers
• Payment system to developers
• APIs to make it all happen seamlessly to user
• Marketing to drive users to the AppStore
• The iOS development kit, avail for free
In return, Apple asks for 30% vs a standard online retailer's 50% cut. This is a business
Cheers !

 

Best Buy provides shelf space for retail boxed copies of World of Warcraft, doesn't mean Best Buy gets to claim 30% of WoW subscriptions in perpetuity after the sale is made. Apple is out of control.

post #15 of 53

In the end this is a matter of one of two scenarios

 

1. Developer didn't bother to read all the rules and got smacked over it. Lesson learned, move on

 

2 (and I think more likely from the reaction) Developer read the rules, didn't like the rules, decided to do it anyway and thought they could convince Apple to change the rules. They were wrong. 

 

Thing is that from what I understand about how they have the app set up they don't need the system set up the way it is. As it was described folks deposit money at the top of the month into a big community jar and then at the end of the month it is divided up according to which content had the most "likes". So call it that and leave out the money connection. Set up a website for the registering the log in details and sending your money and then put a log in at the top of the app. Folks hit "Like" or "thumbs up" or whatever and at the end of the money divide up the pool by the scores. Apple can hardly cry foul over that. 

post #16 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidm77 View Post

 

Best Buy provides shelf space for retail boxed copies of World of Warcraft, doesn't mean Best Buy gets to claim 30% of WoW subscriptions in perpetuity after the sale is made. Apple is out of control.

 

They can if that's the contract that they set up with WoW. Apple has the right to make what rules they want. You don't like it, don't do business with them. Sure it means you might have to 'go rogue' and set as a jail break app and not everyone is going to go that route but that's the risk you take. 

post #17 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidm77 View Post
Somebody please file a restraint of trade lawsuit against Apple. this is getting stupid.

 

Or sell your app elsewhere.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #18 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

 

They can if that's the contract that they set up with WoW. Apple has the right to make what rules they want. You don't like it, don't do business with them. Sure it means you might have to 'go rogue' and set as a jail break app and not everyone is going to go that route but that's the risk you take. 

 

Apple doesn't have a right to restrict legal commerce between application developers and owners of iPhone just because it wants to get a cut by being the middle man. This has played out in many other industries before, and Apple will eventually lose this.

post #19 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman619 View Post

Apple provides the ecommerce solution for the developer:
• Bandwidth
• Servers
• Billing system to customers
• Payment system to developers
• APIs to make it all happen seamlessly to user
• Marketing to drive users to the AppStore
• The iOS development kit, avail for free
In return, Apple asks for 30% vs a standard online retailer's 50% cut. This is a business
Cheers !

 

And anyone who thinks your list is cheap or easy to manage needs to nut up and match it on another platform and see how much capital they need up front and staffing to match it.

post #20 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidm77 View Post
Apple doesn't have a right to restrict legal commerce between application developers and owners of iPhone just because it wants to get a cut by being the middle man. This has played out in many other industries before, and Apple will eventually lose this.

 

So they can sell their stuff on their websites, accessible through Safari on iDevices. There's nothing for Apple to lose. You can skateboard on the street and public sidewalk but not on my sidewalk and my driveway.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #21 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidm77 View Post

 

Apple doesn't have a right to restrict legal commerce between application developers and owners of iPhone just because it wants to get a cut by being the middle man. This has played out in many other industries before, and Apple will eventually lose this.


They do, however, have the right to control what they sell in their store. Don't like their rules? Don't play their game. There are plenty of alternative options for developers. If they wanna access Apple's customers with iTunes accounts, they'll have to follow the rules. If you owned your own store, then you would understand what it means to be the owner. John Doe from across the street can't force you to sell his cherries if you don't want to.

post #22 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

So they can sell their stuff on their websites, accessible through Safari on iDevices. There's nothing for Apple to lose. You can skateboard on the street and public sidewalk but not on my sidewalk and my driveway.

 

 

Apple does not own you as a consumer just because you bought their stupid phone; even if they seem to think they do. Your sidewalk analogy is not valid.

post #23 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidm77 View Post
Apple does not own you as a consumer just because you bought their stupid phone; even if they seem to think they do. Your sidewalk analogy is not valid.

 

See, the problem here is that you hate Apple, and that's blinding you to the accuracy of what I'm saying.

 

Do you also complain that Target doesn't sell Wal-mart's store brand products?

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #24 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by neosum View Post

John Doe from across the street can't force you to sell his cherries if you don't want to.

 

This is more akin to John Doe selling a pie tin through iTunes and then Apple insisting that they forever in the future have a claim to 30% of the price of the cherries to make a pie and John Doe can't even tell his customer where cherries can be bought elsewhere.

 

All of these "Well, if it was your store" comments are complete nonsense because you can't show me another retail setting where this ridiculous scheme exists.


Edited by schmidm77 - 5/28/12 at 9:53pm
post #25 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hyram Gestan View Post
It's the Golden Rule:

 

Apple's got the Gold, so Apple makes the Rules.

 

It's closer to "Apple is given the gold", isn't it? The App Store wouldn't be the most popular if developers found its rules too restrictive.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #26 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

which is fine when you are talking about a good or service. But with donations there's possibly laws that would be violated by Apple bing in the middle of it, especially with that 30%. Which could be why they want to be left out of it completely

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddyp View Post

Oh really.. Look at how united way and other similar "charities" work. Only a 30 % cut would make most of the charities that united way funds happy.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

I agree that donations shouldn’t go through Apple, even if Apple is providing something for that 30% cut. ...

 

The thing people are forgetting here is that just because these guys use the word "donations," doesn't mean they are a charity or there is any actual "donating" going on.  This is not a charity and there are no actual donations.  

 

This is a payment system for content creators that goes around the payment system for content creators that Apple already has in place.  

post #27 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It's closer to "Apple is given the gold", isn't it? The App Store wouldn't be the most popular if developers found its rules too restrictive.

Yes, it's the most popular. It's simple to achieve popularity when you're the only game in town.
Edited by EWTHeckman - 5/28/12 at 10:06pm
post #28 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

This is a payment system for content creators that goes around the payment system for content creators that Apple already has in place.  

Most interactions with this system apparently do not involve processing payments. It sounds like the portion deciding who gets what is closer to a "Like" button in Facebook. I can see Apple enforcing their rules on the initial deposit transaction. But are they enforcing the rules for any interaction with the system? (As in "Like" button.) If so, I think Apple is probably going too far.
post #29 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by neosum View Post

...
 Don't like their rules? Don't play their game. There are plenty of alternative options for developers...

 

That's what people are being told repeatedly. Are people too dumb to understand?

post #30 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandman619 View Post

Apple provides the ecommerce solution for the developer:
• Bandwidth
• Servers
• Billing system to customers
• Payment system to developers
• APIs to make it all happen seamlessly to user
• Marketing to drive users to the AppStore
• The iOS development kit, avail for free
In return, Apple asks for 30% vs a standard online retailer's 50% cut. This is a business
Cheers !

Isn't the issue a little more complex than 30%? The issue that most developers object to (but must adhere to) is this:

 

1. Pay Apple $100 to get the developer account, recurring each year.

2. Create an app that sells for $1.00.

3. A customer buys the app, 70 cents go to developer, 30 cents go to Apple.

4. The app has an OPTION for the customer to BUY items such as a digital book (for example). Apple does not store this book on their servers. This book is downloaded directly from the developer's own servers using its own bandwidth and using basically none of Apple's system once the app is bought.

5. Apple prohibits this behavior and forces that for each transaction WITHIN an app, that Apple gets 30%. So if a book costs $10, then $7 goes to the developer and $3 goes to Apple.

6. Apple goes further and prohibits LINKS to the book so that the customer can buy on the developer's website.

7. This is the reason why apps such as Amazon Kindle doesn't have an ability to buy digital book within its app for iOS, because Apple gets 30% of the cut for each transaction and without hosting the digital contents themselves.

 

For a customer with just one transaction, Apple gets paid $3.30 (not including the cost of $100 each year), and the developer gets $8.00 minus the cost of operating their book servers and other operating costs. Essentially, Apple gets paid three times for one customer for one transaction. The question for each developer, of course, what is the profit margin after all of these costs? And is it worth it?

 

As an analogy, and please correct me if I am off.

 

Me: I own a toy store a mile from here, and I want to place these toy catalogs in your store and selling them for $1.00 to your customers. What do you think? (I know catalogs are mostly given away for free).

Store: Sure we would love to have you sell your toy catalogs in our store, but we ask that you give us 30% of your selling price of $1.00.

Me: *Thinking* That sounds reasonable enough.

Store: And we also want 30% for each item that a customer buys within the catalog.

Me: Hmmmmm....really?

Store: Well, if you want to do business with us, then you must follow our rules!


Edited by KevinN206 - 5/29/12 at 12:07am
post #31 of 53
Here is what apple need to do to fix this:

Have in place a process for registered charitable organisations to accept donations. Any app which wishes to claim donations for a charity has to prove that a) the charity is real and qualified/registered b) the donations are being sent, by Apple to the charity's bank account.

Then when Apple makes its payments they pay the whole amount to the charity.

Anyone else who accepts donations and is not a fully qualified registered charity is claiming donations as an income and is liable to Apples fees and also more than likely liable to taxes in their country/state.
Edited by irnchriz - 5/29/12 at 12:40am
post #32 of 53

I think your analogy is ridiculous. The fact is that the ecosystem is created and maintained by apple, and charging 30% is not excessive. In fact, when apple came in with 30%, other phone companies like Nokia's symbian etc were charging 40-50%. Your catalog and actual item analogy doesn't apply here at all in fact, because the goods don't exist outside this ecosystem. You need to put it back on the iDevice to use the goods.

 

$100 developer fee is peanuts. To complain about that is stupid. It is only intended to keep the non-serious folks away, and in the process cover the costs of creating the development platform and APIs a little.

 

Apple sells an experience and charges 30% for it. If you don't want to pay you are free to sell your stuff online. Just don't go advertising inside apple's store. What you are asking is that a manufacturer who wants to sell his product for a lower price than for example in Target Store (because he doesn't have to pay the cut for Target), advertises his lower price goods inside the Target Stores. Will Target allow this?

post #33 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

"we understand that directing your user outside your app may not be the user experience you prefer to offer your users. However it is a common experience in a variety of iOS apps."
 

Does "outside your app" mean that you must switch over to Safari? Or is it allowed handle transactions through an in-app web-page?

I wonder why bank apps are allowed. You can clearly pay bills and do transactions and stuff in all bank apps and paypal etc.

post #34 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinN206 View Post
As an analogy, and please correct me if I am off.

 

Me: I own a toy store a mile from here, and I want to place these toy catalogs in your store and selling them for $1.00 to your customers. What do you think? (I know catalogs are mostly given away for free).

Store: Sure we would love to have you sell your toy catalogs in our store, but we ask that you give us 30% of your selling price of $1.00.

Me: *Thinking* That sounds reasonable enough.

Store: And we also want 30% for each item that a customer buys within the catalog.

Me: Hmmmmm....really?

Store: Well, if you want to do business with us, then you must follow our rules!

 

I'm a developer. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. If you don't want to abide by the store owners rules, find another store owner.

post #35 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

Does "outside your app" mean that you must switch over to Safari? Or is it allowed handle transactions through an in-app web-page?

I wonder why bank apps are allowed. You can clearly pay bills and do transactions and stuff in all bank apps and paypal etc.

 

It depends what the financial transaction is for. If it's for a physical (non-digital) product then Apple don't want a cut, in fact their rules prohibit you from using their in-app purchase system for this.

If on the other hand the product or service is for use in the app then they want you to use in-app purchase.

post #36 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by aderutter View Post

 

I'm a developer. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. If you don't want to abide by the store owners rules, find another store owner.

 

Please tell us, oh wise one, where this mythical "other store" exists where developers can sell to the 100+ million iOS users that doesn't rely on exploiting security flaws in iOS to jailbreak?

 

Again, Apple does not own you just because you bought their phone, and it telling developers they cannot sell their software to you unless they agree to its onerous terms is going to go down as well as AT&T preventing people from using Carterphones did.

post #37 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidm77 View Post

Apple doesn't have a right to restrict legal commerce between application developers and owners of iPhone just because it wants to get a cut by being the middle man. This has played out in many other industries before, and Apple will eventually lose this.

OK, Mr. Expert. Please tell us exactly which law Apple has broken - and the exact clause that Apple has violated.

Apple isn't restricting legal commerce. The application developer is free to sell the app directly to the customer if they wish. They can tell the customer "you can buy our app if you jailbreak your phone and not have to pay Apple anything". Very few have done so because they make far more money working with Apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinN206 View Post

Isn't the issue a little more complex than 30%? The issue that most developers object to (but must adhere to) is this:

1. Pay Apple $100 to get the developer account, recurring each year.
2. Create an app that sells for $1.00.
3. A customer buys the app, 70 cents go to developer, 30 cents go to Apple.
4. The app has an OPTION for the customer to BUY items such as a digital book (for example). Apple does not store this book on their servers. This book is downloaded directly from the developer's own servers using its own bandwidth and using basically none of Apple's system once the app is bought.
5. Apple prohibits this behavior and forces that for each transaction WITHIN an app, that Apple gets 30%. So if a book costs $10, then $7 goes to the developer and $3 goes to Apple.
6. Apple goes further and prohibits LINKS to the book so that the customer can buy on the developer's website.
7. This is the reason why apps such as Amazon Kindle doesn't have an ability to buy digital book within its app for iOS, because Apple gets 30% of the cut for each transaction and without hosting the digital contents themselves.

For a customer with just one transaction, Apple gets paid $3.30 (not including the cost of $100 each year), and the developer gets $8.00 minus the cost of operating their book servers and other operating costs. Essentially, Apple gets paid three times for one customer for one transaction. The question for each developer, of course, what is the profit margin after all of these costs? And is it worth it?

As an analogy, and please correct me if I am off.

Me: I own a toy store a mile from here, and I want to place these toy catalogs in your store and selling them for $1.00 to your customers. What do you think? (I know catalogs are mostly given away for free).
Store: Sure we would love to have you sell your toy catalogs in our store, but we ask that you give us 30% of your selling price of $1.00.
Me: *Thinking* That sounds reasonable enough.
Store: And we also want 30% for each item that a customer buys within the catalog.
Me: Hmmmmm....really?
Store: Well, if you want to do business with us, then you must follow our rules!

That's a lousy analogy. You're talking about competitors rather than suppliers. If you want to use your analogy, it would be like ToysRUs telling a supplier "you want us to sell a new game? We'll do it if we get an exclusive on the game and you agree to only sell the game and it's optional, add-on pieces through ToysRUs as long as the contract remains in effect. If you want to sell it via other channels, you have that option if you don't sign up with us, but your sales will be much lower. Plus, you'll have to set up your own infrastructure to sell it which will cost you more than the 30% you pay us."

Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidm77 View Post

Please tell us, oh wise one, where this mythical "other store" exists where developers can sell to the 100+ million iOS users that doesn't rely on exploiting security flaws in iOS to jailbreak?

Again, Apple does not own you just because you bought their phone, and it telling developers they cannot sell their software to you unless they agree to its onerous terms is going to go down as well as AT&T preventing people from using Carterphones did.

The fact that Apple is successful does not make their action illegal.

And you have your 'facts' all wrong. Apple isn't telling developers that they can't sell their software. They're simply defining the terms for Apple selling the software for them. Any retailer can do the same thing and no one is making the developer go with Apple. As you've pointed out, developers do so because it's by far the most profitable scenario for them. Most developers I know are very happy with the way the App Store is working for them.. So what's illegal about it?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #38 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

It does get a bit sticky in some instances. You can't even have a link to a website inside your app if any where on that website there is a way to buy something. Sometimes I think they go too far but where do you draw the line?

I thought that's how Amazon app works for buying books.

 

Amazon had to resubmit their app and all links to outside web sources for purchasing had to be removed. You cannot have an in-app store nor link to a web store from within your app.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #39 of 53

Strange this would happen with donations. Apps and commercial stuff and so on, sure, but donations?

 

Wonder if the red cross takes a 30% cut from all donations to people in need as well.....

 

Oh well, its not like apple ever claimed not to be in this for money, they after a ll a business, not a charity org.

post #40 of 53
Jeez... This is stupid. The 30% has been debunked as being a very fair rate; 50% cuts are much more common. There are ways around giving Apple their cut-- Amazon's physical goods app is one simple example.

The system hurts additional layers of middlemen. If you don't directly create, don't expect a huge benefit. What cut was Flattr taking off the "donations?"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple rejecting apps with Flattr micro-payment integration