Hey email CEO says App Store policy dispute is not about the money

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 46
    9secondkox29secondkox2 Posts: 2,663member
    This is how any store, publisher, etc. works. 

    People pay the store. The store pays the vendor. 

    Boom. done. 

    This thing has no merit. 

    unless the government wants to tell the entirety of business that it’s been done wrong forever and Apple needs to take the blame... but then again with all the good being called bad these days, that would not be a shock. 
    cat52spock1234qwerty52
  • Reply 22 of 46
    jimh2jimh2 Posts: 611member
    This guy is a blowhard screaming from his bully pulpit again. Last year it was the unsubstantiated discrimination in determining  credit limits on the Apple Card. I will never give him a nickel of my money. 

    If you want to sell a product at Walmart they have to agree to carry it and you have to comply with their rules. Some companies have found out that Walmart will “threaten” to drop your product unless they can get it for a lower price. I remember a 20/20 or Dateline show where the manufacturer of a garden house was told to lower the price each year or be dropped. Eventually he started shortening the hose in order to be able to afford to sell it to Walmart. They too, like the App Store, are the only market that matters. Same holds true for Costco (specially sized items or bundles) and Best Buy ((TV model numbers are unique to them to avoid price comparisons). 
    svanstromcat52jdb8167spock1234Rayz2016qwerty52
  • Reply 23 of 46
    longfanglongfang Posts: 445member
    svanstrom said:
    "Does the world's largest company really get to decide how millions of other businesses can interact with their own customers?“

    Yes they can, because it is their ecosystem. Maybe you should have read their guidelines before developing the world’s umpteenth email app and submitting it to the App Store. 
    You obviously didn't understand what the hell is  talking about.  Did you actually read the original post?  Here's the entire context surrounding that sentence;

    "But personally, as the owner of a business, this isn’t just about money. Money grabs the headlines, but there’s a far more elemental story here. It's about the absence of choice, and how Apple forcibly inserts themselves between your company and your (the developer's) customer.

    Does the world’s largest company really get to decide how millions of other businesses (ie: developers) can interact with their own (again, referring to developers')  customers? In fact, Apple’s policy distances you from your customer."

    His implication is, is that with respect to the app or service, the consumer is the developer's customer not Apple's and that the developer has the right, without interference, to manage the relationship between the developer and user of the app or service.  And he has a good point.  And you can bet that the coming investigation or hearing will take this into account.  The major issue is not the 30% cut although no doubt that will play a part in it as well.  

    So he wants to take away the relationship that I have paid quite a lot for (to Apple) to know that I'm getting good, safe/secure, apps via the Apple AppStore; with no problems with scammers (or stupid programmers getting hacked) stealing money from my account?

    I'm paying a ridiculous amount of money to Apple to get the products/services that I'm getting, and I would personally prefer if not some entitled dipshit f*cks that up just because he personally is craving money and attention.
    "if not some entitled dipshit f*cks that up just because he personally is craving money and attention."

    Wake me up when you've built a $25+ million a year business from scratch.  Those users paying for the app / service are as much as his customers as they are of Apple's he's entitled to the control the end-to-end relationship of the customers of his app.  Every business is entitled to that other wise they won't be around long enough.  But you would know that if you accomplished such a thing.
    Well he’s also entitled to take his “business” to another platform. What he isn’t entitled to, is to dictate terms to Apple.
    cat52spock1234qwerty52
  • Reply 24 of 46
    JBSloughJBSlough Posts: 92member
    Apple should give in. Let it in the App Store. The App will tank. Way too expensive. As someone above pointed out the fees will be posted. That’ll scare away most customers. Then they’ll have no one to blame but themselves. 
    Apple’s position makes sense. No one wants download an app that doesn’t do anything unless you’ve subscribed already from their website. We can argue till doomsday whether 30% is too high. But at the end of the day, Apple has what a 20% market share in smartphones? Ignore that part market then. No one is forcing you to develop for it. 
    spock1234qwerty52
  • Reply 25 of 46
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Even their logo looks like crap.
  • Reply 26 of 46
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    JBSlough said:
    Apple should give in. Let it in the App Store. The App will tank. Way too expensive. As someone above pointed out the fees will be posted. That’ll scare away most customers. Then they’ll have no one to blame but themselves. 
    Apple’s position makes sense. No one wants download an app that doesn’t do anything unless you’ve subscribed already from their website. We can argue till doomsday whether 30% is too high. But at the end of the day, Apple has what a 20% market share in smartphones? Ignore that part market then. No one is forcing you to develop for it. 
    Ah, that’s just it you see. He wants it in the App Store in such a way that the prices don’t show up. 

    Apple should ban it altogether. A thousand bucks a year for an email service that isn’t even personalised? The more I think about it, the more it sounds like a scam. 
  • Reply 27 of 46
    The solution is simple.

    Develop a web app instead. Then you are absolutely 100% in control of what your app can do along with billing.

    Why does Hey even need to be in The App Store?



    Oh right, those billion highly sought after potential customers.
    cat52
  • Reply 28 of 46
    qwerty52qwerty52 Posts: 367member
    Maybe, with attacking Apple and Apple’s AppStore policy , he is trying to put “Hey” in the middle of the picture for more publicity?....
    Hoping in this way to find enough customers, happy to pay him $999,- for a simple e-mail application
    cat52
  • Reply 29 of 46
    AppleZuluAppleZulu Posts: 1,989member
    Fried is sidestepping the fact that the App Store brings in customers. Before the App Store, not only were customers at the mercy of app developers for compatibility issues, UI consistency, bloatware, viruses, etc., they were also at the mercy of app developers for unreliable and/or sketchy billing practices. The App Store takes that risk away. If you sign up for a subscription-based service, you can easily find where to make changes or cancellations. No more “sign up online, but cancellation requires finding a well-hidden Easter-egg link or worse, a phone call on the fifth Thursday of the month, between the hours of 2 and 2:15 a.m.” By removing that kind of risk, it absolutely brings in customers who would otherwise be less willing to try a new app or service.
    edited June 2020 cat52qwerty52Detnator
  • Reply 30 of 46
    dipdog3dipdog3 Posts: 89member
    Apple is consumer-centric in their approach.

    If every app sent you to their own website to put in your credit card information, it would frustrate consumers to no end.
    svanstrom
  • Reply 31 of 46
    Rayz2016 said:


    Apple is doing nothing NOTHING to stop him communicating directly to his customers. That is not his problem. His problem is that under Apple's system, he cannot frame his pricing in a more favourable light.
    They most certainly are...  Schiller suggested in his e-mail one of the options is to raise the price on Apple customers to cover the IAP fee.  

    Can they communicate directly to their customers that they could save 30% by cancelling via the AppStore and signing up through the website?  No, they are banned from directly communicating that crucial information that would benefit the end user.  

    If Apple wants to go all out rent-seeking mode they should be consistent.  It's ridiculous that I can download Salesforce Inbox and they present a sign in screen with no way to IAP a Salesforce license and no way to do anything other than stare at the login screen.  But that and hundreds of apps like that are allowed.  Apparently those apps are allowed based on some unwritten rule that if they consider it app an IT dept my purchase then the app gets a free pass to avoid IAP.

    This type of capricious and arbitrary enforcement of rules might be perfectly acceptable for a company that faces lots of competition.  But as Apple is part of a duopoly and they own 2/3rd of the mobile app market they are going to be the next company to land in the EU crosshairs.  And if the political winds in the US change to where an administration wants to go after Apple, the Schiller suggestion that Hey raise prices on Apple customers is like a smoking gun example of a company abusing it's power to raise prices on consumers.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 32 of 46
    longfang said:

    Well he’s also entitled to take his “business” to another platform. What he isn’t entitled to, is to dictate terms to Apple.
    This is true, but he's also entitled to take his complaints to the EU and the US antitrust regulators and their CTO has already testified in the past about tech industry abuses so I'm sure he has no qualms about doing so. They could make things very uncomfortable for Apple in upcoming years and some things, like Schiller's suggestion of raising prices on iOS customers would be a bit tough to explain.
  • Reply 33 of 46
    dipdog3dipdog3 Posts: 89member
    Apple developed the devices, the App Store, and the developer tools, but developers want to keep all of the money without compensating Apple for all of their hard work.

    Sounds like a bunch of spoiled ungrateful children.
    edited June 2020 svanstromRayz2016Detnator
  • Reply 34 of 46
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Rayz2016 said:


    Apple is doing nothing NOTHING to stop him communicating directly to his customers. That is not his problem. His problem is that under Apple's system, he cannot frame his pricing in a more favourable light.
    They most certainly are...  Schiller suggested in his e-mail one of the options is to raise the price on Apple customers to cover the IAP fee.  

    Can they communicate directly to their customers that they could save 30% by cancelling via the AppStore and signing up through the website?  No, they are banned from directly communicating that crucial information that would benefit the end user.  

    If Apple wants to go all out rent-seeking mode they should be consistent.  It's ridiculous that I can download Salesforce Inbox and they present a sign in screen with no way to IAP a Salesforce license and no way to do anything other than stare at the login screen.  But that and hundreds of apps like that are allowed.  Apparently those apps are allowed based on some unwritten rule that if they consider it app an IT dept my purchase then the app gets a free pass to avoid IAP.

    This type of capricious and arbitrary enforcement of rules might be perfectly acceptable for a company that faces lots of competition.  But as Apple is part of a duopoly and they own 2/3rd of the mobile app market they are going to be the next company to land in the EU crosshairs.  And if the political winds in the US change to where an administration wants to go after Apple, the Schiller suggestion that Hey raise prices on Apple customers is like a smoking gun example of a company abusing it's power to raise prices on consumers.

    Not really though.

    Companies have been charging different prices depending on circumstances since companies have been companies. Amazon charges different amounts to different customers depending on cookies they find on your machine.

    There is no law (EU or US) that says you have to charge the same amount to everyone. That's how loyalty discounts work.

    Oh, and there's nothing illegal about being a monopoly, so being a duopoly certainly isn't.

    But I'm glad you brought up this point:

    Can they communicate directly to their customers that they could save 30% by cancelling via the AppStore and signing up through the website?  No, they are banned from directly communicating that crucial information that would benefit the end user.  

    To begin with, not mentioning it on the Apple Store certainly hasn't prevented other companies from bypassing the IAP.  In fact, you can just look at the text from the Kindle app to see how it's done. So Apple is clearly not all that fussed about bypassing the IAP since they allow provisions for it to slip through.  

    But that and hundreds of apps like that are allowed.  Apparently those apps are allowed based on some unwritten rule that if they consider it app an IT dept my purchase then the app gets a free pass to avoid IAP.

    And now we're getting to it. And here's the difference between these apps and Hey. Ready? It's going to blow your mind.

    Hey doesn't have a publicly available sign-up page. 

    I think that's why Apple has dug its heels on this particular service. 

    Nothing to do with Hey trying to charge a $1000 a year for a non-personalised email address.

    Nothing to do with Hey trying to avoid the IAP because they don't want to have their ridiculous prices show up front and centre where they can be compared transparently with similar services in the same store.

    I think the problem Apple has is that once an Apple customer goes to the Hey site, no one can see if they're being charged the price that Hey is trying to hide, or some other price altogether. No one knows if the payment service is secure, or what other information Hey will ask customers who sign up. How easy will it be for customers to cancel the subscription when they realise that $99/$349/$999 is rather a lot to pay for a no-frills email service?

    Hey is throwing up a very clever smokescreen, and this change of tack is an attempt to direct attention away from their lack of visibility and ridiculous pricing, and keep the focus on Apple. 

    So why doesn't Apple doesn't just say this? Probably because if they did, that would be interfering with Hey's business. 

    I get why they don't want to use the IAP; I certainly wouldn't want those prices exposed on the App Store. But what I can't square is the lack of a sign-up page. They should add one. If they do that, then I would be happy to see Apple give them a pass. If not, then Apple should stand up for transparency and the online safety of their customers.

    edited June 2020 Detnator
  • Reply 35 of 46
    cjlaczcjlacz Posts: 45member
    "Does the world's largest company really get to decide how millions of other businesses can interact with their own customers?“

    Yes they can, because it is their ecosystem. Maybe you should have read their guidelines before developing the world’s umpteenth email app and submitting it to the App Store. 
    You obviously didn't understand what the hell is  talking about.  Did you actually read the original post?  Here's the entire context surrounding that sentence;

    "But personally, as the owner of a business, this isn’t just about money. Money grabs the headlines, but there’s a far more elemental story here. It's about the absence of choice, and how Apple forcibly inserts themselves between your company and your (the developer's) customer.

    Does the world’s largest company really get to decide how millions of other businesses (ie: developers) can interact with their own (again, referring to developers')  customers? In fact, Apple’s policy distances you from your customer."

    His implication is, is that with respect to the app or service, the consumer is the developer's customer not Apple's and that the developer has the right, without interference, to manage the relationship between the developer and user of the app or service.  And he has a good point.  And you can bet that the coming investigation or hearing will take this into account.  The major issue is not the 30% cut although no doubt that will play a part in it as well.  

    He does have a point, but I'm not really sure it's to the benefit of the customer.  For an app like Hey.com that requires I subscribe to the service I *want* to be able to subscribe through my Apple account if I download app rather than be force to put my credit card number on their site and manage another subscription from yet another location. This is why Apple has the rule in place, but that option benefits the consumer. In some ways it benefits the developer too, but I won't try most applications that would require me to add billing details external to the app when it's basically paying for a feature or service of the app. For something like Hey, if I used it long time, I'd might change my payment method if I decide to make it my main email so that's it is independent of the App Store, but by god, I want the options to subscribe in the app to start with. 

    I don't really agree with him either that the customer is the developer's customer. I use an iPhone because I like the management of the App Store. I enjoy the quality of the apps and the usability of the system. That includes managing payments through Apple. Buying an iPhone or iPad is an agreement between Apple and I that the store is managed well, and that it's designed to work well for me as a customer. So yes, Apple has a place putting themselves in the middle. 

    I originally thought he might have a valid point when this all started, but the more he talks the worse is sounds. And after reading the App Store guidelines, I think Apple's argument is the right one. If they added support for imap and pop3, so it actually can work like an email client out of the box, then yes, the subscription could be handled outside of apple. But as an App that doesn't work until you buy a subscription to a service, there MUST be a way for the consumer to purchase it inside the app. This is different from he reader category of apps. You aren't buying content elsewhere, you are purchasing a service as a requirement to get a working app. 
    Rayz2016
  • Reply 36 of 46
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    cjlacz said:
    "Does the world's largest company really get to decide how millions of other businesses can interact with their own customers?“

    Yes they can, because it is their ecosystem. Maybe you should have read their guidelines before developing the world’s umpteenth email app and submitting it to the App Store. 
    You obviously didn't understand what the hell is  talking about.  Did you actually read the original post?  Here's the entire context surrounding that sentence;

    "But personally, as the owner of a business, this isn’t just about money. Money grabs the headlines, but there’s a far more elemental story here. It's about the absence of choice, and how Apple forcibly inserts themselves between your company and your (the developer's) customer.

    Does the world’s largest company really get to decide how millions of other businesses (ie: developers) can interact with their own (again, referring to developers')  customers? In fact, Apple’s policy distances you from your customer."

    His implication is, is that with respect to the app or service, the consumer is the developer's customer not Apple's and that the developer has the right, without interference, to manage the relationship between the developer and user of the app or service.  And he has a good point.  And you can bet that the coming investigation or hearing will take this into account.  The major issue is not the 30% cut although no doubt that will play a part in it as well.  

    He does have a point, but I'm not really sure it's to the benefit of the customer.  For an app like Hey.com that requires I subscribe to the service I *want* to be able to subscribe through my Apple account if I download app rather than be force to put my credit card number on their site and manage another subscription from yet another location. This is why Apple has the rule in place, but that option benefits the consumer. In some ways it benefits the developer too, but I won't try most applications that would require me to add billing details external to the app when it's basically paying for a feature or service of the app. For something like Hey, if I used it long time, I'd might change my payment method if I decide to make it my main email so that's it is independent of the App Store, but by god, I want the options to subscribe in the app to start with. 

    I don't really agree with him either that the customer is the developer's customer. I use an iPhone because I like the management of the App Store. I enjoy the quality of the apps and the usability of the system. That includes managing payments through Apple. Buying an iPhone or iPad is an agreement between Apple and I that the store is managed well, and that it's designed to work well for me as a customer. So yes, Apple has a place putting themselves in the middle. 

    I originally thought he might have a valid point when this all started, but the more he talks the worse is sounds. And after reading the App Store guidelines, I think Apple's argument is the right one. If they added support for imap and pop3, so it actually can work like an email client out of the box, then yes, the subscription could be handled outside of apple. But as an App that doesn't work until you buy a subscription to a service, there MUST be a way for the consumer to purchase it inside the app. This is different from he reader category of apps. You aren't buying content elsewhere, you are purchasing a service as a requirement to get a working app. 
    +10


  • Reply 37 of 46
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Another problem is that he's actually selling a bespoke service, not an actual product, and the store isn't geared for that.

    What he wants is for folk to get in contact with him, so they can haggle different prices depending on what they're willing to pay. I reckon he'd love to be able to chat to folk and convince them why they should pay $999 a year for an email service. Perhaps there's some extra functionality he wants to keep to quiet about (there'd better be). I don't know.

    I wonder if there's some sort of half-way house that will protect Apple's customers and allow more freedom for developers who want to offer a customised haggle price.

    How about:

    You go to the website. Negotiate a price.

    The vendor generates a token (a hashed value of the price and UUID that lasts for a limited time and can only be used once).

    If you click on the generated URL in the email message the vendor has sent you, you a warning that you are absolutely on your own in terms of disputes between you and the vendor.

    If you accept (and you don't just click a button, you have to type 'YES') then you're taken straight to the Apple Pay set up where you pay the agreed price.

    The app is then downloaded onto your phone. There is no direct interaction with the app store so you're left in no doubt that any problems are your own. 

    Apple then passes this agreed price onto the vendor.

    The vendor is charged a fixed amount per year for this service.

    In most cases this won't be needed. Businesses that GENUINELY don't rely on Apple to find them customers will already have signed up users on their website and then just point them to a companion app that they download for free.


  • Reply 38 of 46
    Rayz2016 said:
    Rayz2016 said:


    Apple is doing nothing NOTHING to stop him communicating directly to his customers. That is not his problem. His problem is that under Apple's system, he cannot frame his pricing in a more favourable light.
    They most certainly are...  Schiller suggested in his e-mail one of the options is to raise the price on Apple customers to cover the IAP fee.  

    Can they communicate directly to their customers that they could save 30% by cancelling via the AppStore and signing up through the website?  No, they are banned from directly communicating that crucial information that would benefit the end user.  

    If Apple wants to go all out rent-seeking mode they should be consistent.  It's ridiculous that I can download Salesforce Inbox and they present a sign in screen with no way to IAP a Salesforce license and no way to do anything other than stare at the login screen.  But that and hundreds of apps like that are allowed.  Apparently those apps are allowed based on some unwritten rule that if they consider it app an IT dept my purchase then the app gets a free pass to avoid IAP.

    This type of capricious and arbitrary enforcement of rules might be perfectly acceptable for a company that faces lots of competition.  But as Apple is part of a duopoly and they own 2/3rd of the mobile app market they are going to be the next company to land in the EU crosshairs.  And if the political winds in the US change to where an administration wants to go after Apple, the Schiller suggestion that Hey raise prices on Apple customers is like a smoking gun example of a company abusing it's power to raise prices on consumers.

    Not really though.

    Companies have been charging different prices depending on circumstances since companies have been companies. Amazon charges different amounts to different customers depending on cookies they find on your machine.

    There is no law (EU or US) that says you have to charge the same amount to everyone. That's how loyalty discounts work.

    Oh, and there's nothing illegal about being a monopoly, so being a duopoly certainly isn't.

    But I'm glad you brought up this point:
    My issue is not with them charging different prices.  You said that Apple is doing NOTHING to stop him from communicating with his customers.  But this is not true, Apple censors any communication that there are other ways to purchase the app.  They are stopping him from communicating that with his customers.  If he does what Schiller suggests, adds IAP and then in the in the app on the Basecamp wanted to do right by their customers and communicate that you can sign up here with IAP for X + 30% or you can go to the website and sign up for X that communication that benefits the user will get the app removed from the store.  So again, on pricing, I totally agree with you - no issues charging different amount.  I disagree with your earlier comment that they aren't doing anything to prevent communication because clearly they are if they will reject the app for communicating to users that there are ways to save money.

    Can they communicate directly to their customers that they could save 30% by cancelling via the AppStore and signing up through the website?  No, they are banned from directly communicating that crucial information that would benefit the end user.  

    To begin with, not mentioning it on the Apple Store certainly hasn't prevented other companies from bypassing the IAP.  In fact, you can just look at the text from the Kindle app to see how it's done. So Apple is clearly not all that fussed about bypassing the IAP since they allow provisions for it to slip through.  

    They can't mention it in the app.  You cannot even have it several links away in an app.  If an app has a privacy page and on the privacy page there is a header to a link with a purchase page that will lead to an app rejection.  There can be *no* way to get to any alternative purchase methods.  But if you doubt this is the case - take any app that is on Apple's blessed list and not forced to use IAP.  When you open the app they say you can't sign up in the app, they know it's a hassle, after a member you can start watching in the app.  Click on any of the the Help or Privacy pages and try to find anything that says where to sign up.  You won't because communicating that is banned.
    But that and hundreds of apps like that are allowed.  Apparently those apps are allowed based on some unwritten rule that if they consider it app an IT dept my purchase then the app gets a free pass to avoid IAP.

    And now we're getting to it. And here's the difference between these apps and Hey. Ready? It's going to blow your mind.

    Hey doesn't have a publicly available sign-up page. 

    I think that's why Apple has dug its heels on this particular service. 

    Nothing to do with Hey trying to charge a $1000 a year for a non-personalised email address.

    Nothing to do with Hey trying to avoid the IAP because they don't want to have their ridiculous prices show up front and centre where they can be compared transparently with similar services in the same store.

    I think the problem Apple has is that once an Apple customer goes to the Hey site, no one can see if they're being charged the price that Hey is trying to hide, or some other price altogether. No one knows if the payment service is secure, or what other information Hey will ask customers who sign up. How easy will it be for customers to cancel the subscription when they realise that $99/$349/$999 is rather a lot to pay for a no-frills email service?

    Hey is throwing up a very clever smokescreen, and this change of tack is an attempt to direct attention away from their lack of visibility and ridiculous pricing, and keep the focus on Apple. 

    So why doesn't Apple doesn't just say this? Probably because if they did, that would be interfering with Hey's business. 

    I get why they don't want to use the IAP; I certainly wouldn't want those prices exposed on the App Store. But what I can't square is the lack of a sign-up page. They should add one. If they do that, then I would be happy to see Apple give them a pass. If not, then Apple should stand up for transparency and the online safety of their customers.


    If not having a publicly available sign-up page is the issue, that is resolved in July when they fully launch the service.  But if that is the actual reason they are enforcing another unwritten rule.  And if that is the actual reason Apple's communication is embarrassingly bad as that is never mentioned in what they told Protocol and it's never mentioned as a reason by Phil Schiller when he talked to TechCrunch

    The $1000 a year is a smokescreen for the 1,098 customers who want an option for a 2 or 3 letter e-mail address.  That is their Gold Apple Watch - tone deaf offering that has little to do with the underlying.  Focusing on that is as ridiculous as those that wanted to bash the Apple Watch when it was launched and pointed to the $12,000 option as the reason why.  

    When you get into how easy is it to cancel a $99 a year service down the line?   Is it a concern about the security of their payment systems?   I have no idea but if that is a reason to ban an app then the inconsistency issue is in play again as there are 100s of apps that do exactly what Hey was trying to do - including Netflix with their service that costs $155 a year.

    If I was Hey, I'd do what Superhuman does with their $30 a month e-mail service.  I'd implement IAP to check that box and then make it impossible to get to the IAP without already having a paid subscription.  But that's rolling the dice as that may get rejected as well since now one can be sure what interpretation or unwritten rule might be applied with Apple having the inconsistency problem they have with App review.  

    And if it were legitimately they don't want to expose the pricing for one of the1,098 expensive 2/3 character addresses it's trivial to change the wording on the page to say contact us and then add IAP and do what Schiller suggests and make the poor saps that didn't see it on the web first pay an extra $30 a year.  Wouldn't impact their bottom line at all but is awful knowing a percentage of your customers are throwing money away and there isn't anything you can do to communicate to them that they don't have to.without getting the app rejected.  With them being in relaunch they have some time before they ultimately have to go this route. 

    I'm glad they are speaking out as it's exposed there are lots of developers who are also angry at Apple but scared of retribution if they speak out.  Blowing this up into a huge issue has the potential - whether it's from Apple doing the right thing or the government stepping in to slap their hands - to make the App Store better for consumers. Even if the changes led to their margins dropping 5 or 10%.... Big deal, they are already ridiculously high - 63.7% in 2019 and rising.  Margins that high clearly illustrate how a duopoly that doesn't face competition is able to benefit.  









    edited June 2020
  • Reply 39 of 46
    svanstromsvanstrom Posts: 702member
    Blowing this up into a huge issue has the potential - whether it's from Apple doing the right thing or the government stepping in to slap their hands - to make the App Store better for consumers.
    Speaking as a consumer… I want fewer entitled dipshits trying to circumvent the convenience and security that I'm paying Apple a lot of money for.

    I'm paying Apple a lot of money to have access to their ecosystem, with all the benefits that that has for me; and I don't want my money to go to covering the costs of companies wanting access to the consumers of the Apple ecosystem without paying for themselves.
    jdb8167Detnator
  • Reply 40 of 46
    svanstrom said:
    Blowing this up into a huge issue has the potential - whether it's from Apple doing the right thing or the government stepping in to slap their hands - to make the App Store better for consumers.
    Speaking as a consumer… I want fewer entitled dipshits trying to circumvent the convenience and security that I'm paying Apple a lot of money for.

    I'm paying Apple a lot of money to have access to their ecosystem, with all the benefits that that has for me; and I don't want my money to go to covering the costs of companies wanting access to the consumers of the Apple ecosystem without paying for themselves.

    Not sure how to interpret your position...  Are you for or against forcing Hey to do what Phil Schiller suggests - just increase the cost of the app/service to cover the fees and make it available?

    If Basecamp does what Phil suggests and makes Hey available for $130 in the app store if you wanted the service your money (that additional $30) is going directly to Apple.  Is that fine - all part of the "I'm paying Apple a lot of money for" you expect to pay?   If so, more power to you. I know for some that convenience of all purchases being in one place is nice and that Apple is more trustworthy than many other payment processors. I just think you would be a rare customer who wants to willingly pay an additional  30% for that privilege.  
Sign In or Register to comment.