Reddit is well aware of how the App Store works. They sell their own subscriptions. They could've avoided this disaster by giving enough notice to developers. But instead chose to drop a financial bomb. I get a lot of value out of the communities I participate in on Reddit. But this is yet another example of social media corporate overreach that plays out over and over again. Time to phase Reddit out too....
Every developer is an investor who has invested their time and any related costs to make a profit. They are responsible for any risks related, not the customers, and they should have taken that into consideration as well. It's like a restaurant putting money into a store but after some time the rent goes up and he is forced to close down. Yes, you may feel sorry. Yes, the store owner is greedy or whatever you want to call him. But would you keep feeding the restaurant owner after it's closed? If you have some money to spare, send it to Ukraine or Rwanda or elsewhere.
Every developer is an investor who has invested their time and any related costs to make a profit. They are responsible for any risks related, not the customers, and they should have taken that into consideration as well. It's like a restaurant putting money into a store but after some time the rent goes up and he is forced to close down. Yes, you may feel sorry. Yes, the store owner is greedy or whatever you want to call him. But would you keep feeding the restaurant owner after it's closed? If you have some money to spare, send it to Ukraine or Rwanda or elsewhere.
Why should anyone decline a refund for a service they paid for is being shut down? This developer is a great person but Apollo isn't a charity although at times he gives IAPs to charity nothing indicates that declining a refund would go to a charitable cause. He's made a lot of money, I mean a lot of money over the years and knew the risk building a business off another business and that risk finally materialized like it always does.
This situation is not the developer's fault. Did they fail to prepare for such an event? Yes. Should they be financially punished? No.
The situation is not the users fault either. Why should we be the ones that get financially punished?
Nobody is being financially punished who voluntarily declines a refund of the remaining portion of their subscription. It’s just doing a nice deed for someone who dedicated a lot of time and effort to developing and offering a service over the years. A nice way of saying, I appreciate what you provided enough to have paid for it and I understand it wasn’t your doing that it will be terminated. Thanks, keep the change.
Every developer is an investor who has invested their time and any related costs to make a profit. They are responsible for any risks related, not the customers, and they should have taken that into consideration as well. It's like a restaurant putting money into a store but after some time the rent goes up and he is forced to close down. Yes, you may feel sorry. Yes, the store owner is greedy or whatever you want to call him. But would you keep feeding the restaurant owner after it's closed? If you have some money to spare, send it to Ukraine or Rwanda or elsewhere.
It’s nice if you give to any of the three; the restaurant owner, Ukraine of Rwanda, or to any other folks you feel could use a lift. Here in The Philippines, where I’ve been living for nearly seven years, my small group of expat friends and I have given away literally tens of thousands of kilos of rice, thousands of cans of sardines and other protein sources, paid for dental work, donated wheelchairs and given in many other ways. Can we say that every recipient was deserving or should have prepared better for a typhoon? No, nor do we worry ourselves with such concerns. It’s good to give wherever you identify a need. Maybe you think this developer doesn’t rise high enough on your list. That’s fine, give where you prefer. But please recognize also that others might have different views.
Why should anyone decline a refund for a service they paid for is being shut down? This developer is a great person but Apollo isn't a charity although at times he gives IAPs to charity nothing indicates that declining a refund would go to a charitable cause. He's made a lot of money, I mean a lot of money over the years and knew the risk building a business off another business and that risk finally materialized like it always does.
This situation is not the developer's fault. Did they fail to prepare for such an event? Yes. Should they be financially punished? No.
What is going on with the internet. This shit is getting out of control. No one did nothing to nobody. Who is seriously orchestrating this.
I wanted to chime in as a person who used to write news and still maintains an apple blog on occasion.
I believe it is inappropriate to socially pressure people into declining refunds that are due them. As a writer, I might change the headline so that it is clearly marked as editorial and explain why it is my position that refunds be declined. As a less partial piece for a blog, I could try a how-to approach: "Here's how to decline your refund for subscriptions that fall through." There are ways to do it without telling or even asking readers to decline as if it were some kind of moral or social imperative. I believe that is what rubs some people the wrong way.
Being left behind in this conversation is that apps, especially subscription apps, are businesses. And developers are business people. One of the big problems in the development community is that developers see opportunity but are utterly divorced from business realities. Developers are generally sole proprietors of a business. That has tax implications. Does the IRS give them a break when their business doesn't pan out? Should they? Of course not. It's a business.
If the developer has help with the app, she has to pay that help. There are marketing considerations. There are support considerations. There are platform rules and norms to consider, and a lot more. It is a business that has to be treated like a business.. When app developers do not go into it like they would with any other business, these situations arise.
Another factor exacerbating the issue is that there is an unhealthy relationship with developers and the press. Back when I first started writing, my boss wanted me to interview a developer of an app that I was also supposed to review. I pushed back on it because it would be a conflict of interests to interview the developer while trying to impartially review his app. We needed to decide whether we wanted to be an app review platform or an editorial platform. For the record, we were an app review site. I did the interview. But that was the beginning of the end of my relationship with that company.
Leo LaPort used to boast that he didn't accept review units from companies and he didn't do interviews with tech company execs because he didn't want to contaminate his honest opinion about the news. That lasted until it didn't. Since then, there are popular tech podcasts done by developers such as ATP. It is perfectly reasonable for developers to get their message out. The problem is that non-developer content creators are close friends with developers so there can be no impartial reporting about anything to do with developers. Developers are always right and Apple is always wrong. Developers are the innocent David's who fight against the evil corporate Goliaths. That is the narrative.
In that environment, we have no hope of coverage that holds certain beloved developers to accountability. Regardless of any circumstances that might arise, the businessperson is responsible for dealing with contingencies whether they are acts of god or acts of larger companies. That does not mitigate the responsibility of the app developer/businessperson. We are so very sorry their business went under. But part of the chosen business model of subscriptions is to fulfill the orders with services rendered or monetary refunds. That is the deal that describes the circle of trust implicit in a subscription.
Pressuring people to forgo their due receipt of compensation is to say that the businessperson should never have been treated like a businessperson and instead be treated more like a close friend or family member. That is not the relationship we signed up for when we fulfilled our end of the subscription agreement.
Finally, there is the issue of partiality. These developers are friends of the press and not independent businesses. If Walmart reneged on a subscription delivery because they found it would drive them bankrupt to keep their end of the bargain, we would be calling for their heads. No one would suggest we should forgo our compensation because it would hurt Walmart. We wouldn't care if the situation wasn't Walmart's fault. The same is true for almost any business you can think of with the weird carve out for developers who have friendly relationships with the press. They should somehow be exempted from the business risks and consequences that every other business faces.
Personally, I have lost a business due to circumstances beyond my control. That did not have any bearing on whether or not I was required to pay my employees, vendors, and taxes. No one threw me a pity party for my loss. I was just another fool who didn't plan well enough and couldn't cut it in the cut-throat world of business. Countless people lose businesses everyday due to unfair circumstances beyond their control. Where is all this press sympathy for them? It doesn't exist, nor should it IMO.
I believe these are some of the reasons that drive the negative response to these types of articles. I hope this does not cross a moderation line. It is not my intent to be critical of Appleinsider or any other reporting outlet. It would be impossible to spell out this position without this level of directness. Please let me know if it crosses a line. We should be able to discuss these things with respect and decorum. This is my intent with this post.
Why should anyone decline a refund for a service they paid for is being shut down? This developer is a great person but Apollo isn't a charity although at times he gives IAPs to charity nothing indicates that declining a refund would go to a charitable cause. He's made a lot of money, I mean a lot of money over the years and knew the risk building a business off another business and that risk finally materialized like it always does.
This situation is not the developer's fault. Did they fail to prepare for such an event? Yes. Should they be financially punished? No.
The situation is not the users fault either. Why should we be the ones that get financially punished?
Nobody is being financially punished who voluntarily declines a refund of the remaining portion of their subscription. It’s just doing a nice deed for someone who dedicated a lot of time and effort to developing and offering a service over the years. A nice way of saying, I appreciate what you provided enough to have paid for it and I understand it wasn’t your doing that it will be terminated. Thanks, keep the change.
I do understand the concept of a good deed, but thanks for breaking it down for me anyway.
If Bed, Bath, and Beyond go out of business and you still have an old gift card, what do you do? Do you just tell BB&B to keep it because they worked hard and it wasn’t their fault? Or do you rush over to spend it while you still can?
Business is business. And charity is charity. If someone wishes to mix the two, then good for them. But for them to judge others who choose to keep the two separate is annoying.
Comments
I believe it is inappropriate to socially pressure people into declining refunds that are due them. As a writer, I might change the headline so that it is clearly marked as editorial and explain why it is my position that refunds be declined. As a less partial piece for a blog, I could try a how-to approach: "Here's how to decline your refund for subscriptions that fall through." There are ways to do it without telling or even asking readers to decline as if it were some kind of moral or social imperative. I believe that is what rubs some people the wrong way.
Being left behind in this conversation is that apps, especially subscription apps, are businesses. And developers are business people. One of the big problems in the development community is that developers see opportunity but are utterly divorced from business realities. Developers are generally sole proprietors of a business. That has tax implications. Does the IRS give them a break when their business doesn't pan out? Should they? Of course not. It's a business.
If the developer has help with the app, she has to pay that help. There are marketing considerations. There are support considerations. There are platform rules and norms to consider, and a lot more. It is a business that has to be treated like a business.. When app developers do not go into it like they would with any other business, these situations arise.
Another factor exacerbating the issue is that there is an unhealthy relationship with developers and the press. Back when I first started writing, my boss wanted me to interview a developer of an app that I was also supposed to review. I pushed back on it because it would be a conflict of interests to interview the developer while trying to impartially review his app. We needed to decide whether we wanted to be an app review platform or an editorial platform. For the record, we were an app review site. I did the interview. But that was the beginning of the end of my relationship with that company.
Leo LaPort used to boast that he didn't accept review units from companies and he didn't do interviews with tech company execs because he didn't want to contaminate his honest opinion about the news. That lasted until it didn't. Since then, there are popular tech podcasts done by developers such as ATP. It is perfectly reasonable for developers to get their message out. The problem is that non-developer content creators are close friends with developers so there can be no impartial reporting about anything to do with developers. Developers are always right and Apple is always wrong. Developers are the innocent David's who fight against the evil corporate Goliaths. That is the narrative.
In that environment, we have no hope of coverage that holds certain beloved developers to accountability. Regardless of any circumstances that might arise, the businessperson is responsible for dealing with contingencies whether they are acts of god or acts of larger companies. That does not mitigate the responsibility of the app developer/businessperson. We are so very sorry their business went under. But part of the chosen business model of subscriptions is to fulfill the orders with services rendered or monetary refunds. That is the deal that describes the circle of trust implicit in a subscription.
Pressuring people to forgo their due receipt of compensation is to say that the businessperson should never have been treated like a businessperson and instead be treated more like a close friend or family member. That is not the relationship we signed up for when we fulfilled our end of the subscription agreement.
Finally, there is the issue of partiality. These developers are friends of the press and not independent businesses. If Walmart reneged on a subscription delivery because they found it would drive them bankrupt to keep their end of the bargain, we would be calling for their heads. No one would suggest we should forgo our compensation because it would hurt Walmart. We wouldn't care if the situation wasn't Walmart's fault. The same is true for almost any business you can think of with the weird carve out for developers who have friendly relationships with the press. They should somehow be exempted from the business risks and consequences that every other business faces.
Personally, I have lost a business due to circumstances beyond my control. That did not have any bearing on whether or not I was required to pay my employees, vendors, and taxes. No one threw me a pity party for my loss. I was just another fool who didn't plan well enough and couldn't cut it in the cut-throat world of business. Countless people lose businesses everyday due to unfair circumstances beyond their control. Where is all this press sympathy for them? It doesn't exist, nor should it IMO.
I believe these are some of the reasons that drive the negative response to these types of articles. I hope this does not cross a moderation line. It is not my intent to be critical of Appleinsider or any other reporting outlet. It would be impossible to spell out this position without this level of directness. Please let me know if it crosses a line. We should be able to discuss these things with respect and decorum. This is my intent with this post.
Business is business. And charity is charity. If someone wishes to mix the two, then good for them. But for them to judge others who choose to keep the two separate is annoying.