Apple rejecting apps with Flattr micro-payment integration

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 53
    schmidm77schmidm77 Posts: 223member

    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.

  • Reply 22 of 53
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    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?

  • Reply 23 of 53
    schmidm77schmidm77 Posts: 223member

    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.

  • Reply 24 of 53

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post




    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.



    It's the Golden Rule:


     


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

  • Reply 25 of 53
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member

    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.

  • Reply 26 of 53
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    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.  

  • Reply 27 of 53
    ewtheckmanewtheckman Posts: 309member
    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.
  • Reply 28 of 53
    ewtheckmanewtheckman Posts: 309member
    gazoobee wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 29 of 53
    drdoppiodrdoppio Posts: 1,132member

    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?

  • Reply 30 of 53
    kevinn206kevinn206 Posts: 117member

    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!

  • Reply 31 of 53
    irnchrizirnchriz Posts: 1,617member
    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.
  • Reply 32 of 53
    iamnemaniiamnemani Posts: 64member


    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?

  • Reply 33 of 53
    palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,361member

    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.

  • Reply 34 of 53
    aderutteraderutter Posts: 612member

    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.

  • Reply 35 of 53
    aderutteraderutter Posts: 612member

    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.

  • Reply 36 of 53
    schmidm77schmidm77 Posts: 223member

    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.

  • Reply 37 of 53
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    schmidm77 wrote: »
    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.

    kevinn206 wrote: »
    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."

    schmidm77 wrote: »
    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?
  • Reply 38 of 53
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,464member

    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.

  • Reply 39 of 53
    sleepy3sleepy3 Posts: 244member


    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.

  • Reply 40 of 53
    aaarrrggghaaarrrgggh Posts: 1,609member
    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?"
Sign In or Register to comment.