Developer says Apple rejected update for not forcing auto-billing on users

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 75
    bestkeptsecretbestkeptsecret Posts: 4,300member
    lkrupp said:
    dysamoria said:
    I’m absolutely with the developer here, on this issue.
    So you think developers should have free access to the App Store and Apple should get nothing in return. Because that's what this guy is wanting. He wants the marketing clout of the App Store but doesn't want to pay for it. He offers his app as a free trial but if you want to buy it you go to his website. Yeah, cut Apple out of the deal even though Apple provides the platform, the marketing, the server space. All the developer has to do is upload their app, get it approved and they enjoy all the clout of the world's most valuable marketing platform. The developer doesn't need to advertise, they don't even need a website. 
    It's actually much simpler than that. dysmoria is with the developer because Apple is on the other side. 
    AppleSince1976
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 42 of 75
    bestkeptsecretbestkeptsecret Posts: 4,300member
    Peza said:
    sflocal said:
    dysamoria said:
    I’m absolutely with the developer here, on this issue.
    And I’m firmly in the Apple camp.  Apple is the one doing all the work obtaining and keeping its large base of customers willing to pay for apps.  If 30% is too high given what Apple does they’re more than happy to go to the Android camp, where they probably make zero money.

    70% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

    whiners.
    I bet you own Apple shares. Never on the side of the customer, and this developer never stated they don’t want to give Apple its cut, their complaint is clearly over Apple forcing them to take money from the apps customers, basically here’s a free trial, enter all your payment details and we will charge you if you don’t cancel, it’s a dirty trick purely designed to milk money from the customer, putting the giant corporation Frits and foremost and the customer a very far behind lonely second. 
    It’s not only an anti competitive move but very clearly anti consumer and I’d argue in come countries potentially illegal. I’m glad the developer stood up to Apple on this one.
    If you think Apple shareholders are taking a "defend Apple for anything" stance in an online forum, you are as delusional as you claim the so-called "Apple fanatics" are.

    AppleSince1976
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 43 of 75
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,927member
    MplsP said:
    One of the things I detest and find very anti-consumer is free trials that auto-renew. 

    I’m curious what justification all the supporters here have for mandating an auto renewal of a subscription after the trial period has ended, especially when Apple forbids refunds? It’s hard to see this policy as anything more than Apple forcing a policy that preys on consumers who miss a cancellation deadline.
    I’ve had a refund for a cancelled subscription. 
    aderutterAppleSince1976
     0Likes 0Dislikes 2Informatives
  • Reply 44 of 75
    EsquireCatsesquirecats Posts: 1,268member
    The reason you see a lot of people defending Apple in these situations isn’t because they’re share holders or fanatics.
    It is because running to the press with a victim story is suspicious as fk.
    Never once has the developer truly represented their grievance fairly or accurately. 

    Instead it’s been either an attempt to secure better terms, gain attention to their app or the arrogance of minimising the work they have to do to receive approval. 

    There is also an amount of commonsense  required: out of the thousands of apps that Apple review and process every week, is the huge multinational trying to deliberately harm some tiny, unknown developer for their unimportant app or is there some kind of misunderstanding going on? In the past, Apple’s motivations have aligned with the objective of protecting the store’s users from garbage apps. That includes apps which automatically lose their functions, apps shouldn’t quietly break themselves.

    So no, I don’t blindly hop onto the “AppStore is evil”-train that some people are trying to AstroTurf out there. I also won’t be surprised if Apple again releases the full rejection letter which tells a much different story. 
    edited July 2020
    aderutterAppleSince1976
     0Likes 0Dislikes 2Informatives
  • Reply 45 of 75
    croprcropr Posts: 1,143member
    sflocal said:
    Peza said:
    sflocal said:
    dysamoria said:
    I’m absolutely with the developer here, on this issue.
    And I’m firmly in the Apple camp.  Apple is the one doing all the work obtaining and keeping its large base of customers willing to pay for apps.  If 30% is too high given what Apple does they’re more than happy to go to the Android camp, where they probably make zero money.

    70% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

    whiners.
    I bet you own Apple shares. Never on the side of the customer, and this developer never stated they don’t want to give Apple its cut, their complaint is clearly over Apple forcing them to take money from the apps customers, basically here’s a free trial, enter all your payment details and we will charge you if you don’t cancel, it’s a dirty trick purely designed to milk money from the customer, putting the giant corporation Frits and foremost and the customer a very far behind lonely second. 
    It’s not only an anti competitive move but very clearly anti consumer and I’d argue in come countries potentially illegal. I’m glad the developer stood up to Apple on this one.
    As a developer myself, I remember easily the years of boxed software and the difficulty of actually making money in that market.  Factor in overhead, marketing, distribution, and everything else associated with selling independently, a 30% cut to access that market is chump change.

    Apple created this market that developers have access to.  Not the other way around.

    keep whining.
    I am also a developer. My most profitable app manages elections for general assemblies of companies and non profit organizations.   It is available on iOS , on Android and as a web application.  I am offering a free trial version of my app: maximum 10 voters and 5 voting topics.   Organizations must register and pay for more voters or more topics. There is no auto-billing.   The app was approved without issues, but reading this article I am not so sure anymore if the next version will pass.  

    If I would only make the app for iOS, I would have no sales.  My customers (the organizations) want a solution where all  shareholders/members can vote, irrespective of the device the voters are using. A survey (110 organizations replied) revealed that exactly 0 discovered my app via the App Store.   Which basically means that the marketing story you are telling does not apply for my app: Apple does not bring me any customers.  But of course for your apps this could be different   

    After the survey I made the decision to limit the registration and the payment functionality to the web app only, so I don't have to pay 30% for something that does not bring real value.   Voters can still use the iOS and Android app for all elections: paid and unpaid




    edited July 2020
    muthuk_vanalingamavon b7elijahg
     2Likes 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 46 of 75
    Marvinmarvin Posts: 15,545moderator
    MplsP said:
    One of the things I detest and find very anti-consumer is free trials that auto-renew. 

    I’m curious what justification all the supporters here have for mandating an auto renewal of a subscription after the trial period has ended, especially when Apple forbids refunds? It’s hard to see this policy as anything more than Apple forcing a policy that preys on consumers who miss a cancellation deadline.
    The auto-renew subscription is Apple's billing feature, the developer is trying to avoid customers using it to avoid paying Apple and Google fees as well as the auto-renew. People are mainly defending Apple's 30% fee and the developer doesn't lose out much as they charge more via the Apple method. If an IAP is 2.99, to avoid the 30% fee, it can be priced at 2.99 x 10/7 = 4.27. 3.99 would be a 7% fee. Higher prices reduce sales volume a bit though.

    Auto-renew subscriptions after free or introductory offer periods don't make for a good user experience, they should always send a notification informing the user that a free trial is about to end and ask if they want to continue with the subscription. After that, it would be up to the user to manage subscriptions. I actually feel there should be a law about this because far too many companies are doing it and many of them make it deliberately hard to cancel.
    elijahg
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 47 of 75
    macplusplusmacplusplus Posts: 2,118member
    cropr said:
    sflocal said:
    Peza said:
    sflocal said:
    dysamoria said:
    I’m absolutely with the developer here, on this issue.
    And I’m firmly in the Apple camp.  Apple is the one doing all the work obtaining and keeping its large base of customers willing to pay for apps.  If 30% is too high given what Apple does they’re more than happy to go to the Android camp, where they probably make zero money.

    70% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

    whiners.
    I bet you own Apple shares. Never on the side of the customer, and this developer never stated they don’t want to give Apple its cut, their complaint is clearly over Apple forcing them to take money from the apps customers, basically here’s a free trial, enter all your payment details and we will charge you if you don’t cancel, it’s a dirty trick purely designed to milk money from the customer, putting the giant corporation Frits and foremost and the customer a very far behind lonely second. 
    It’s not only an anti competitive move but very clearly anti consumer and I’d argue in come countries potentially illegal. I’m glad the developer stood up to Apple on this one.
    As a developer myself, I remember easily the years of boxed software and the difficulty of actually making money in that market.  Factor in overhead, marketing, distribution, and everything else associated with selling independently, a 30% cut to access that market is chump change.

    Apple created this market that developers have access to.  Not the other way around.

    keep whining.
    I am also a developer. My most profitable app manages elections for general assemblies of companies and non profit organizations.   It is available on iOS , on Android and as a web application.  I am offering a free trial version of my app: maximum 10 voters and 5 voting topics.   Organizations must register and pay for more voters or more topics. There is no auto-billing.   The app was approved without issues, but reading this article I am not so sure anymore if the next version will pass.  

    If I would only make the app for iOS, I would have no sales.  My customers (the organizations) want a solution where all  shareholders/members can vote, irrespective of the device the voters are using. A survey (110 organizations replied) revealed that exactly 0 discovered my app via the App Store.   Which basically means that the marketing story you are telling does not apply for my app: Apple does not bring me any customers.  But of course for your apps this could be different   

    After the survey I made the decision to limit the registration and the payment functionality to the web app only, so I don't have to pay 30% for something that does not bring real value.   Voters can still use the iOS and Android app for all elections: paid and unpaid 

    If it does not bring "real value" then you do not pay 30% either. How can Apple get 30% while your app doesn't sell? Do you pay an upront fee we're not aware of?
    edited July 2020
    AppleSince1976
     0Likes 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 48 of 75
    GeorgeBMacgeorgebmac Posts: 11,421member
    For me the issue is complicated by Family Sharing:   My grandson can take out a trial subscription -- which often reverts to a full year subscription -- without my knowledge.   The only notification I get is an email and, if I miss it, the subscription goes into affect.

    But, so far, Apple has been good at dealing with this and providing refunds when needed.
    Also, they have improved the visibility of these subscriptions so they are easier to find and manage.

    But, that said, Apple should not be dictating that developers HAVE to auto-renew their trials.  That is not necessary or fair -- and it makes no logical sense.
    elijahgmuthuk_vanalingam
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 49 of 75
    aderutteraderutter Posts: 634member
    For me the issue is complicated by Family Sharing:   My grandson can take out a trial subscription -- which often reverts to a full year subscription -- without my knowledge.   The only notification I get is an email and, if I miss it, the subscription goes into affect.
    But who authorises and pays for the subscription?
    Is this purchase an “Ask to buy” and you authorise? If so, that is on you.
    If not “Ask to buy” and you give him carte-blanche to buy anything that is also on you surely?

    If your grandson has “ask to buy” enabled for him but is able to sign up for a free trial and subscription without you authorising it then you have a case. Otherwise...

    EsquireCatsAppleSince1976
     0Likes 0Dislikes 2Informatives
  • Reply 50 of 75
    croprcropr Posts: 1,143member
    cropr said:
    sflocal said:
    Peza said:
    sflocal said:
    dysamoria said:
    I’m absolutely with the developer here, on this issue.
    And I’m firmly in the Apple camp.  Apple is the one doing all the work obtaining and keeping its large base of customers willing to pay for apps.  If 30% is too high given what Apple does they’re more than happy to go to the Android camp, where they probably make zero money.

    70% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

    whiners.
    I bet you own Apple shares. Never on the side of the customer, and this developer never stated they don’t want to give Apple its cut, their complaint is clearly over Apple forcing them to take money from the apps customers, basically here’s a free trial, enter all your payment details and we will charge you if you don’t cancel, it’s a dirty trick purely designed to milk money from the customer, putting the giant corporation Frits and foremost and the customer a very far behind lonely second. 
    It’s not only an anti competitive move but very clearly anti consumer and I’d argue in come countries potentially illegal. I’m glad the developer stood up to Apple on this one.
    As a developer myself, I remember easily the years of boxed software and the difficulty of actually making money in that market.  Factor in overhead, marketing, distribution, and everything else associated with selling independently, a 30% cut to access that market is chump change.

    Apple created this market that developers have access to.  Not the other way around.

    keep whining.
    I am also a developer. My most profitable app manages elections for general assemblies of companies and non profit organizations.   It is available on iOS , on Android and as a web application.  I am offering a free trial version of my app: maximum 10 voters and 5 voting topics.   Organizations must register and pay for more voters or more topics. There is no auto-billing.   The app was approved without issues, but reading this article I am not so sure anymore if the next version will pass.  

    If I would only make the app for iOS, I would have no sales.  My customers (the organizations) want a solution where all  shareholders/members can vote, irrespective of the device the voters are using. A survey (110 organizations replied) revealed that exactly 0 discovered my app via the App Store.   Which basically means that the marketing story you are telling does not apply for my app: Apple does not bring me any customers.  But of course for your apps this could be different   

    After the survey I made the decision to limit the registration and the payment functionality to the web app only, so I don't have to pay 30% for something that does not bring real value.   Voters can still use the iOS and Android app for all elections: paid and unpaid 

    If it does not bring "real value" then you do not pay 30% either. How can Apple get 30% while your app doesn't sell? Do you pay an upront fee we're not aware of?
    Currently, any organization that uses my voting system has to register pay via the web app.  It shareholders/members can use the iOS, Android and web app to vote.  

    Before I switched business model, organizations could also register and pay via the iOS or Android app (giving a 30% cut to Apple or Google), but the survey showed that even these organizations were acquired as a customer by the marketing effort I set up and paid myself, not via any marketing from Apple or Google.  That is the reason I switched.

    muthuk_vanalingam
     0Likes 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 51 of 75
    GeorgeBMacgeorgebmac Posts: 11,421member
    aderutter said:
    For me the issue is complicated by Family Sharing:   My grandson can take out a trial subscription -- which often reverts to a full year subscription -- without my knowledge.   The only notification I get is an email and, if I miss it, the subscription goes into affect.
    But who authorises and pays for the subscription?
    Is this purchase an “Ask to buy” and you authorise? If so, that is on you.
    If not “Ask to buy” and you give him carte-blanche to buy anything that is also on you surely?

    If your grandson has “ask to buy” enabled for him but is able to sign up for a free trial and subscription without you authorising it then you have a case. Otherwise...


    The ask to buy thing wasn't working well so I was forced to turn it off.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 52 of 75
    prismaticsprismatics Posts: 164member
    The security and user protection theatre serves us another stellar performance.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 53 of 75
    jcs2305jcs2305 Posts: 1,342member
    Peza said:
    sflocal said:
    dysamoria said:
    I’m absolutely with the developer here, on this issue.
    And I’m firmly in the Apple camp.  Apple is the one doing all the work obtaining and keeping its large base of customers willing to pay for apps.  If 30% is too high given what Apple does they’re more than happy to go to the Android camp, where they probably make zero money.

    70% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

    whiners.
    I bet you own Apple shares. Never on the side of the customer, and this developer never stated they don’t want to give Apple its cut, their complaint is clearly over Apple forcing them to take money from the apps customers, basically here’s a free trial, enter all your payment details and we will charge you if you don’t cancel, it’s a dirty trick purely designed to milk money from the customer, putting the giant corporation Frits and foremost and the customer a very far behind lonely second. 
    It’s not only an anti competitive move but very clearly anti consumer and I’d argue in come countries potentially illegal. I’m glad the developer stood up to Apple on this one.
    So Apple should get nothing for hosting an app in a store they run and maintain? Customer's should also have no responsibility to remember to cancel before they are charged, or as someone stated above immediately cancel ( via subscriptions ) on your device so you get the free trial period and no chance of auto renew? There comes a time when grown adults have to take at least some responsibility for their actions, transactions or subscriptions or whatever else..haha my goodness.

    This developer also did the same thing with Google and the Playstore because of the same policy. Whether or not the 30% fee is too much is a whole other discussion.

    Besides not wanting to pay the 30% fee they make a point out of the unwillingness of Apple to allow them to issue refunds. Which makes it seem like Apple isn't willing to refund customers and this is impacting many customer's experience?

    complete disbelief from those users when we explain that Apple won't allow us to issue refunds."

    Yet if you look at this from support..

    Problem with a subscription?

    You can request a refund. You can also cancel the subscription.



    It seems Apple is willing to work with customers if they feel they need a refund?  I have never tried this so I can't speak on how many refunds are actually done. It makes me feel like Apple not letting the Devs give out refunds is because they prefer you go to support and get it done through them. Just an observation...






    AppleSince1976
     0Likes 0Dislikes 1Informative
  • Reply 54 of 75
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    sflocal said:
    dysamoria said:
    I’m absolutely with the developer here, on this issue.
    And I’m firmly in the Apple camp.  Apple is the one doing all the work obtaining and keeping its large base of customers willing to pay for apps.  If 30% is too high given what Apple does they’re more than happy to go to the Android camp, where they probably make zero money.

    70% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

    whiners.
    Way to miss the point bro. I hope you’re having fun playing stock market games. 
    MplsP
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 55 of 75
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member

    lkrupp said:
    dysamoria said:
    I’m absolutely with the developer here, on this issue.
    So you think developers should have free access to the App Store and Apple should get nothing in return. Because that's what this guy is wanting. He wants the marketing clout of the App Store but doesn't want to pay for it. He offers his app as a free trial but if you want to buy it you go to his website. Yeah, cut Apple out of the deal even though Apple provides the platform, the marketing, the server space. All the developer has to do is upload their app, get it approved and they enjoy all the clout of the world's most valuable marketing platform. The developer doesn't need to advertise, they don't even need a website. 
    Another Apple fanatic missing the point. It’s just so damned tiresome to engage with people like yourself. 
    MplsP
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 56 of 75
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,526member
    AI says:
    The tweet's attached screengrab references terms and conditions that developers producing iOS apps must abide. The full documentation says that apps may offer such a free trial, transitioning to a paid one, but it does not appear to mandate it. 
    crowley said:
    It's annoyed me in the past that the default for trial was to auto renew on a paid subscription.  I never knew that it was Apple mandated behaviour.  Pretty shady policy.

    Got a link for that?


    Down Dog says:
    "...Apple won't allow us to issue refunds."


    Firstly, I think this developer is not telling us the entire story.

    I'm thinking the same thing.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 57 of 75
    macguimacgui Posts: 2,526member
    But, so far, Apple has been good at dealing with this and providing refunds when needed.
    Also, they have improved the visibility of these subscriptions so they are easier to find and manage.

    But, that said, Apple should not be dictating that developers HAVE to auto-renew their trials.  That is not necessary or fair -- and it makes no logical sense.
    As yet I don't think it's clear your statement about Apple requiring developers to HAVE auto-renewal is correct, based on AI's statement in the article.

    I think we should know more before jumping on the Tar and Feather bandwagon.

    I also think that deadlines clearly stated are the responsibility of the customer to observe and abide. The world is full of offers that have deadlines and it's nice and considerate that some entities forgive them on occasion. But I think it's base stupidity to expect as an entitlement, consideration for not paying attention. If given, at what point does it end? A free trial consisting of a given period, followed by a grace period for not observing the free try period?

    As for refunds, I bet there's an accounting situation that needs to be addressed when giving refunds, beyond just the amount itself. By a few accounts here and outside of this site, Apple has been giving customers refunds. If it were easier, why not let the Dev/Vendor give them? Again, I don't think DD is given us the full story. I'll wait to see a response from Apple before lighting even one torch.
    AppleSince1976
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 58 of 75
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    macgui said:
    AI says:
    The tweet's attached screengrab references terms and conditions that developers producing iOS apps must abide. The full documentation says that apps may offer such a free trial, transitioning to a paid one, but it does not appear to mandate it. 
    crowley said:
    It's annoyed me in the past that the default for trial was to auto renew on a paid subscription.  I never knew that it was Apple mandated behaviour.  Pretty shady policy.

    Got a link for that?

    No. I'm replying to the same article you are.
    Yoga app developer Down Dog reports that Apple has rejected an update because its free trial version doesn't automatically turn into a paid subscription.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 59 of 75
    crowley said:
    It's annoyed me in the past that the default for trial was to auto renew on a paid subscription.  I never knew that it was Apple mandated behaviour.  Pretty shady policy.
    Name me three “Free Trials” that, when expired, do not either:

    1. Simply deny the user access to the software; or

    2. Auto-Convert into Paid, based on Payment info required at Install-time.

    Note that the Google Play Store has the exact same policy. Which Downward Doggerel also complained about.

    IOW, this isn’t about “Shady Practices”; this is 100% about attempting to “guilt” Apple and Google into giving them a free Distribution Platform... forever!

    Yeah, it’s about “greed”, alright; but not Apple’s (nor Google’s)!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 60 of 75
    What I notice is that their web site doesn't actually make a guarantee that the price charged will always be lower than what would be paid via Apple or Google app stores. They use the term "usually". 
    You can safely read that as “Never”.

    This is a con trying to play Victim.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.