sacto joe

mtriviso said:

Sigh. Just open the movie theaters. There's nothing like watching a movie in a massive IMAX 3D theater. If people are frightened they might get the rona, then just stay at home. Please, just let the rest of us who are unafraid enjoy what our acting troupes have to offer in the milieu to which we have become accustomed. 

crowley said:

jcs2305 said:

crowley said:

The Gmail app doesn't function unless you sign up to Gmail.  Apple aren't demanding 30% of Google revenues from the ads they deliver from privacy scraping your mailbox though.

Hey should allow sign up to the free trial through the app, then send the user an email to subscribe on the website a few days before the trial is up.

You aren't required to pay $99.00 up front to use Gmail either... That changes the comparison a bit..

Users must first pay a $99 fee on the Hey website, a subscription that is not offered in-app.

It changes the comparison in that it makes Apple’s argument look dumb. Lots of email accounts require subscription fees, but Apple don’t demand a cut when you add them to Mail.  And For a privacy focussed company they’re curiously silent about the privacy costs of using apps and services of privacy-threatening rivals.

Regarding Hey, it’s an email app, you don’t require the app to use the service and there is no reason Apple should have any claim to the subscription fee. They’re just being dicks.

I think Basecamp could probably tweak the app start up to circumvent the rules, but they shouldn’t have to because the rules are straight up dumb. 

ITGUYINSD said:

elijahg said:

urahara said:

ITGUYINSD said:

lkrupp said:

Everybody wants free ride on Apple's amazingly successful platform. On both the Mac and iOS a developer is more likely to succeed financially if their products are in the App Store where it's easy to buy, install and pay for. But that's not good enough, they want free access or just a nominal fee. Most people don't know that grocery stores actually charge brands for shelf space in their stores. Don't pay, your product does not make it to the shelves. Grocery stores also sell their own branded products in competition with the name brands. Lots of retailers do the same thing but in Apple's case it's deemed anti-trust and anti-competitive.Go figure.

That's what you got out of reading the article, is that everybody wants a free ride?  I've not read anywhere that anyone thinks the App Store should be a free service to developers.  What is an issue is the mandatory 30% cut that Apple takes, and the inability of app companies to sell their own product without going through the App Store.

Your grocery store analogy doesn't really work here because there are more than one grocery store chains.  There is only one App Store.  If Grocery store A sets a 30% fee to sell a food item, and grocery store B sets a 10% fee, the manufacturer has a choice and can sell at store B.  There is no choice in the Apple ecosystem.  That is the problem, not that everybody wants a free ride.

LOL. So by you argument the manufacturer has a choice to sell at store B with 10% fee, and is by doing this entitled to sell in Store A with the same fee? 

It looks like you think so. Because you demand to sell in Apple’s Store/ecosystem by grocery Store B rules. Why do you think so that grocery store A should allow grocery store B to sell on its land?

No. That is an example of competition. The manufacturer goes to store B and shuns store A, who ends up losing out because of their higher fees. But with iOS, there is one store.

Imagine spending thousands of hours and tends of thousands of dollars creating, designing and refining a product which will only fit in slots in store A's shelves, and requires, say, flour to work. You go to store A and say "here is my product, please place it on your shelf". Store A then says hmm, no, we don't like that your product has a website address on wherein you might get flour cheaper than you can here, you have to sell your flour here and give us 30% of your revenue. So then you are stuffed if you still want to make money on the flour. You can't go to store B because their slots are different, you would have to spend tens of thousands again redesigning your product from the ground up to fit. Does that metaphor make it easier to understand why Apple's ecosystem could be seen as a monopoly?

Precisely what I was stating.  

arlomedia said:

thekrew said:

So you released an app to Apple and the public with no price info in the description. You want Apple to distribute and advertise it for free and you expect your new customers to be okay with the cost being a surprise? Uh, no. That amounts to false advertising and I can’t say I’m terribly surprised that Apple have decided not to play. 

Apple's rules say that if developers don't use Apple's payment system, they are not allowed to provide any pricing info or a link to their website in the app description or the app itself. My app takes this approach and it subjects me to routine criticism about false advertising, bait and switch, etc. The pricing is clearly presented on my website, but if I put it in the app description, the app would be rejected. I wish users understood this so they would stop blaming the developers.

I have suggested solutions to Apple through their developer feedback tool -- for example, allow developers to hide an app from the store search so only established customers will install it -- but have never received a response.