ProtonMail CEO says Apple strong-armed adoption of in-app purchases

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 71
    Rayz2016 said:
    You don’t have a problem with the 30% cut. 
    You want Apple to help you avoid it. 
    Sounds to me like you have a problem with the 30% cut. 
    Let me clarify:  It was for different app and different business models.  For some services that had a high cost for content, 30% was too much.  For others, not a big deal.
  • Reply 62 of 71
    crowley said:
    CEO of what, LOL? Another junk mail client? 
    ProtonMail is very well regarded as a privacy-focused email provider.

    Most third-party iOS apps are cr*p anyway - compared to Apple‘s stock apps, that is. There’s always a catch, e.g. the app doesn’t work on lock screen, has no Watch / Mac version, cannot use hardware acceleration, drains the phone’s battery too fast, looks out of place, has ads or requires a subscription, and so on

  • Reply 63 of 71
    Apple in September tweaked its App Store guidelines to allow for free apps that are meant to complement premium web-based services. It also introduced a new process that allows developers to not only appeal App Store decisions, but also guidelines. In the wake of those updated rules, Yen said that ProtonMail plans to remove its in-app premium purchasing option
    I'm pretty sure that Netflix and other video subscription apps require you to have a subscription and say so in the app, so it would be inconsistent to treat Protonmail differently.
  • Reply 64 of 71

    crowley said:
    CEO of what, LOL? Another junk mail client? 
    ProtonMail is very well regarded as a privacy-focused email provider.

    Most third-party iOS apps are cr*p anyway - compared to Apple‘s stock apps, that is. There’s always a catch, e.g. the app doesn’t work on lock screen, has no Watch / Mac version, cannot use hardware acceleration, drains the phone’s battery too fast, looks out of place, has ads or requires a subscription, and so on

    Most third-party iOS apps are crap, simply because most of the millions of apps in the app store are crap. However, there are still hundreds if not thousands of great apps and games. For example, Procreate is one of the best painting programs on any platform. And as you note, Protonmail is a well-regarded mail app.
    edited October 2020 crowley
  • Reply 65 of 71
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    crowley said:
    CEO of what, LOL? Another junk mail client? 
    ProtonMail is very well regarded as a privacy-focused email provider.
    Most third-party iOS apps are cr*p anyway - compared to Apple‘s stock apps, that is. There’s always a catch, e.g. the app doesn’t work on lock screen, has no Watch / Mac version, cannot use hardware acceleration, drains the phone’s battery too fast, looks out of place, has ads or requires a subscription, and so on
    That's a very specific list of complaints that don't really have relevance for most apps, e.g. very few apps would benefit from a watch app.  Also, many of those complaints could be levelled at many of Apple's own apps.

    So I don't really understand your angle here; are you suggesting that ProtonMail should shut up because most of the apps on Apple's app store are junk?  That seems like an Apple pproblem more than a ProtonMail problem. 

    Have you even tried the Proton Mail app before you've judged it to be junk?  It's decent.
  • Reply 66 of 71
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    "They are judge, jury, and executioner on their platform, 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," Yen added.
    That's right, they are.  And that's exactly the way it should be.

    These people want use Apple's servers, bandwidth, security, and who knows what other resources to distribute their product, but want to cut Apple out when it comes to actually charging for their product.

    Using that logic, I should be able to walk into Walmart, set up a space to distribute my product, and not give Walmart a cut.  I'll go try that right now!  See you when I'm filthy rich!

    Whinging freeloaders.

    Horseshit.  No one is saying there shouldn't be rules, just that the rules should be fair, sensible, understandable, equally applied, and should have a method for appealing when there might be good reason for changing the rules to accomodate the different ways that apps are evolving. 
    Yes, certainly.  So this dev wants to use Apple's platform and resources to host and advertise their product, but when the time comes to actually profit from their product by charging their customers, they want to cut Apple out.  That doesn't seem fair at all to me, and it's perfectly understandable and reasonable to me that Apple wants compensation for that.  They have two mechanisms for that, either direct purchase of the app, or in app purchases from within the app itself, both of which have a cut for Apple.  Going to a website cuts Apple out from the profit side, and leaves them holding the bag for all the costs associated with hosting, advertising and serving the app to users.

    My analogy with space at Walmart is apt.
    Hosting and advertising an app costs peanuts.  Try again. 
    Irrelevant.  Even "peanuts" adds up over thousands of apps and millions of users.

    Try again.
  • Reply 67 of 71
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    "They are judge, jury, and executioner on their platform, 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," Yen added.
    That's right, they are.  And that's exactly the way it should be.

    These people want use Apple's servers, bandwidth, security, and who knows what other resources to distribute their product, but want to cut Apple out when it comes to actually charging for their product.

    Using that logic, I should be able to walk into Walmart, set up a space to distribute my product, and not give Walmart a cut.  I'll go try that right now!  See you when I'm filthy rich!

    Whinging freeloaders.

    Horseshit.  No one is saying there shouldn't be rules, just that the rules should be fair, sensible, understandable, equally applied, and should have a method for appealing when there might be good reason for changing the rules to accomodate the different ways that apps are evolving. 
    Yes, certainly.  So this dev wants to use Apple's platform and resources to host and advertise their product, but when the time comes to actually profit from their product by charging their customers, they want to cut Apple out.  That doesn't seem fair at all to me, and it's perfectly understandable and reasonable to me that Apple wants compensation for that.  They have two mechanisms for that, either direct purchase of the app, or in app purchases from within the app itself, both of which have a cut for Apple.  Going to a website cuts Apple out from the profit side, and leaves them holding the bag for all the costs associated with hosting, advertising and serving the app to users.

    My analogy with space at Walmart is apt.
    Hosting and advertising an app costs peanuts.  Try again. 
    Irrelevant.  Even "peanuts" adds up over thousands of apps and millions of users.

    Try again.
    So charge for that then, in the form of developer subscriptions, or per app publications or download fees.  Nickel and diming a company for services it provides that are entirely seperate from the app store, delivered via the developers own servers and content delivery mechanisms; that is not the way to go, it's Apple being predatory.

    As I said originally, and you appeared to agree with:  fair and sensible.
  • Reply 68 of 71
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    "They are judge, jury, and executioner on their platform, 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," Yen added.
    That's right, they are.  And that's exactly the way it should be.

    These people want use Apple's servers, bandwidth, security, and who knows what other resources to distribute their product, but want to cut Apple out when it comes to actually charging for their product.

    Using that logic, I should be able to walk into Walmart, set up a space to distribute my product, and not give Walmart a cut.  I'll go try that right now!  See you when I'm filthy rich!

    Whinging freeloaders.

    Horseshit.  No one is saying there shouldn't be rules, just that the rules should be fair, sensible, understandable, equally applied, and should have a method for appealing when there might be good reason for changing the rules to accomodate the different ways that apps are evolving. 
    Yes, certainly.  So this dev wants to use Apple's platform and resources to host and advertise their product, but when the time comes to actually profit from their product by charging their customers, they want to cut Apple out.  That doesn't seem fair at all to me, and it's perfectly understandable and reasonable to me that Apple wants compensation for that.  They have two mechanisms for that, either direct purchase of the app, or in app purchases from within the app itself, both of which have a cut for Apple.  Going to a website cuts Apple out from the profit side, and leaves them holding the bag for all the costs associated with hosting, advertising and serving the app to users.

    My analogy with space at Walmart is apt.
    Hosting and advertising an app costs peanuts.  Try again. 
    Irrelevant.  Even "peanuts" adds up over thousands of apps and millions of users.

    Try again.
    So charge for that then, in the form of developer subscriptions, or per app publications or download fees.  Nickel and diming a company for services it provides that are entirely seperate from the app store, delivered via the developers own servers and content delivery mechanisms; that is not the way to go, it's Apple being predatory.

    As I said originally, and you appeared to agree with:  fair and sensible.
    It's their platform.  Use it or don't.  You don't get to tell them how to manage their platform.  I don't get why that is so fracking hard to understand.

    Don't like it, use another platform, or create your own.  You don't get to tell them how to manage their platform.  Neither you singly, or "you" collectively.
  • Reply 69 of 71
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    "They are judge, jury, and executioner on their platform, 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," Yen added.
    That's right, they are.  And that's exactly the way it should be.

    These people want use Apple's servers, bandwidth, security, and who knows what other resources to distribute their product, but want to cut Apple out when it comes to actually charging for their product.

    Using that logic, I should be able to walk into Walmart, set up a space to distribute my product, and not give Walmart a cut.  I'll go try that right now!  See you when I'm filthy rich!

    Whinging freeloaders.

    Horseshit.  No one is saying there shouldn't be rules, just that the rules should be fair, sensible, understandable, equally applied, and should have a method for appealing when there might be good reason for changing the rules to accomodate the different ways that apps are evolving. 
    Yes, certainly.  So this dev wants to use Apple's platform and resources to host and advertise their product, but when the time comes to actually profit from their product by charging their customers, they want to cut Apple out.  That doesn't seem fair at all to me, and it's perfectly understandable and reasonable to me that Apple wants compensation for that.  They have two mechanisms for that, either direct purchase of the app, or in app purchases from within the app itself, both of which have a cut for Apple.  Going to a website cuts Apple out from the profit side, and leaves them holding the bag for all the costs associated with hosting, advertising and serving the app to users.

    My analogy with space at Walmart is apt.
    It really isn't.  Walmart floor space costs a lot of money, Walmart don't have a policy where anyone can submit a product for review and reasonably expect that it will end up on the shelves, and Walmart's stores are their only sellable property, there is no ecosystem.  Digital store do not compare with retail stores, and clumsy analogies do not help with understanding issues.

    Apple is not just acting as a store here, they are the platform owner and the hardware vendor, and they already make money hand over foot from selling iPhones and iPads, for which a significant attraction is the app ecosystem. Apple do not deserve "compenstion" for other people's work that adds value to Apple's product, they're just abusing their App Store position for rent seeking.
    And of course, all of the data centers, and the technology and people employed by them, whether owned by Apple, or leased, or whatever, cost nothing, and should be available for all to use for free.

    You don't think Walmart reviews the products it sells before actually putting them on shelves?  Tell me why certain books, games and equipment aren't available in Walmart then.  Digital stores do equate to physical ones with regard to ownership and the complete lack of right by others to dictate what products are available and how much they cost.
  • Reply 70 of 71
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    "They are judge, jury, and executioner on their platform, 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," Yen added.
    That's right, they are.  And that's exactly the way it should be.

    These people want use Apple's servers, bandwidth, security, and who knows what other resources to distribute their product, but want to cut Apple out when it comes to actually charging for their product.

    Using that logic, I should be able to walk into Walmart, set up a space to distribute my product, and not give Walmart a cut.  I'll go try that right now!  See you when I'm filthy rich!

    Whinging freeloaders.

    Horseshit.  No one is saying there shouldn't be rules, just that the rules should be fair, sensible, understandable, equally applied, and should have a method for appealing when there might be good reason for changing the rules to accomodate the different ways that apps are evolving. 
    Yes, certainly.  So this dev wants to use Apple's platform and resources to host and advertise their product, but when the time comes to actually profit from their product by charging their customers, they want to cut Apple out.  That doesn't seem fair at all to me, and it's perfectly understandable and reasonable to me that Apple wants compensation for that.  They have two mechanisms for that, either direct purchase of the app, or in app purchases from within the app itself, both of which have a cut for Apple.  Going to a website cuts Apple out from the profit side, and leaves them holding the bag for all the costs associated with hosting, advertising and serving the app to users.

    My analogy with space at Walmart is apt.
    Hosting and advertising an app costs peanuts.  Try again. 
    Irrelevant.  Even "peanuts" adds up over thousands of apps and millions of users.

    Try again.
    So charge for that then, in the form of developer subscriptions, or per app publications or download fees.  Nickel and diming a company for services it provides that are entirely seperate from the app store, delivered via the developers own servers and content delivery mechanisms; that is not the way to go, it's Apple being predatory.

    As I said originally, and you appeared to agree with:  fair and sensible.
    It's their platform.  Use it or don't.  You don't get to tell them how to manage their platform.  I don't get why that is so fracking hard to understand.

    Don't like it, use another platform, or create your own.  You don't get to tell them how to manage their platform.  Neither you singly, or "you" collectively.
    Sure.  No one should ever have an oppinion about anything ever if its different from yours. 
  • Reply 71 of 71
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    crowley said:
    crowley said:
    "They are judge, jury, and executioner on their platform, 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," Yen added.
    That's right, they are.  And that's exactly the way it should be.

    These people want use Apple's servers, bandwidth, security, and who knows what other resources to distribute their product, but want to cut Apple out when it comes to actually charging for their product.

    Using that logic, I should be able to walk into Walmart, set up a space to distribute my product, and not give Walmart a cut.  I'll go try that right now!  See you when I'm filthy rich!

    Whinging freeloaders.

    Horseshit.  No one is saying there shouldn't be rules, just that the rules should be fair, sensible, understandable, equally applied, and should have a method for appealing when there might be good reason for changing the rules to accomodate the different ways that apps are evolving. 
    Yes, certainly.  So this dev wants to use Apple's platform and resources to host and advertise their product, but when the time comes to actually profit from their product by charging their customers, they want to cut Apple out.  That doesn't seem fair at all to me, and it's perfectly understandable and reasonable to me that Apple wants compensation for that.  They have two mechanisms for that, either direct purchase of the app, or in app purchases from within the app itself, both of which have a cut for Apple.  Going to a website cuts Apple out from the profit side, and leaves them holding the bag for all the costs associated with hosting, advertising and serving the app to users.

    My analogy with space at Walmart is apt.
    It really isn't.  Walmart floor space costs a lot of money, Walmart don't have a policy where anyone can submit a product for review and reasonably expect that it will end up on the shelves, and Walmart's stores are their only sellable property, there is no ecosystem.  Digital store do not compare with retail stores, and clumsy analogies do not help with understanding issues.

    Apple is not just acting as a store here, they are the platform owner and the hardware vendor, and they already make money hand over foot from selling iPhones and iPads, for which a significant attraction is the app ecosystem. Apple do not deserve "compenstion" for other people's work that adds value to Apple's product, they're just abusing their App Store position for rent seeking.
    And of course, all of the data centers, and the technology and people employed by them, whether owned by Apple, or leased, or whatever, cost nothing, and should be available for all to use for free.

    You don't think Walmart reviews the products it sells before actually putting them on shelves?  Tell me why certain books, games and equipment aren't available in Walmart then.  Digital stores do equate to physical ones with regard to ownership and the complete lack of right by others to dictate what products are available and how much they cost.
    No one said Apple's data centres should be available for all to use for free.  That's a complete misrepresentation.

    And you totally missed the point about Walmart, even in the one factor you chose to call out.  Apple have a list of rules and if you abide by all of them then you get on the store.  Walmart have a list of rules and if you abide by them you might get in the store, if Walmart decides its worth selling your product instead of someone elses.  That's pretty different.  Not even mentioning that Walmart has no obvious equivalent to IAP, because it's not a digital store and therefore totally different.
Sign In or Register to comment.