6 ms·

Indie Dev Rants About App Store at GDC, Apple Pulls Game

34 points by matthew-wegner 17y ago

protomyth 17y ago
These two variable problems are such a pain. I would bet it was more for the experiment in pricing than the rant.
- matthew-wegner 17y ago
  Likely so. It's worth noting that Apple maintains a 90-day return policy on App Store purchases, though, so it's not like Tommy was screwing customers out of their money.
  - protomyth 17y ago
    Thinking about it, the app probably has a high number of returns then. That would probably trigger Apple's wrath.
    - matthew-wegner 17y ago
      I asked Tommy--it's had 12 returns (which is ~20%).
- gabrielroth 17y ago
  Agreed. The price-raising is an interesting experiment but you can see why Apple might object to their store being used for an experiment. It would be nice if they'd also (a) tell the guy why they kicked him off, and (b) set a new policy on pricing that prevents stuff like this. Even better would be (c) allowing him to reapply on the condition that he keep to the new pricing policy.
  - cookiecaper 17y ago
    A policy that says "you can't experiment with your price"? That doesn't sound well-informed. The guy wasn't doing anything wrong, he was just trying to maximize the income potential. If you don't allow vendors to experiment with prices, you're not a very good distribution channel.
joeld42 17y ago
Kind of undercuts his argument "look I can put crap in the appstore and sell it $300" when it gets pulled.
- johnfn 17y ago
  I think his argument was more along the lines of "people will buy overpriced crap" than "apple won't pull overpriced crap from the store".
wrs 17y ago
Presumably, people misread the price (299 = 2.99) and Apple got tired of the credit card chargebacks. The App Store agreement is one of the most one-sided things I've ever seen. Pulling the app is one of the nicer things they could have done to punish this behavior. For example, on a return, the app store agreement allows Apple to take the full sale price from the developer's account, keeping the 30% commission. So for each return of a $300 app, the developer could take a $90 loss! I don't know if Apple actually takes advantage of this clause.
- kevinh 17y ago
  IANAL, but I doubt that part of the contract would hold up in court. When looking at contracts, the court tends to favor the little guy, and I'm certain that app developers could argue that Apple was unjustly enriched by the contract. Now, I'm hardly a source of reputable knowledge, as my only experience with law is only one quarter of Business Law in college, but I could see the case going either way.
  - Frazzydee 17y ago
    I think practical concerns would prevail here. If Apple only exercises this clause for developers who insult the King, there won't be enough plantiffs for a class action, and it would be too expensive for Joe the Developer to take Apple to court himself. He might go to small claims court, but most will just take the loss.
- alex_c 17y ago
  299.99 = 2.99?
- cubicle67 17y ago
  > For example, on a return, the app store agreement allows Apple to take the full sale price from the developer's account, keeping the 30% commission. So for each return of a $300 app, the developer could take a $90 loss! This is incorrect. I know it came up a few months ago and caused a lot of fuss, but it's still incorrect. What is correct is that Apple may take the full amount they paid the developer. for example, if a customer requested a refund for a $300 app, this would cost the developer $210 and Apple $90.
Qz 17y ago
The main issue here is not that Apple can and will do this kind of thing, it's the whole cloud of secrecy that shrouds how they decide this type of thing.
mkramlich 17y ago
I suspect the whole thing, on the dev's part, was a PR ploy. Everything about it seems juvenile too.
mechanical_fish 17y ago
Possibility 2: Zits & Giggles' creators also kept raising the price of their game — as an experiment — up to $400 as of last week. What we have here is a textbook case of "burying the lede". The headline on this article is ridiculous linkbait. Here's are some simple UX design rules: There should be no point on a phone's screen which costs $400 to touch. If you absolutely must have a button which costs $400 to touch, it should have a UI that works hard to communicate this to the user and to make it very difficult to do so by accident. Think: Confirmation dialog with RED warning message containing words like "$400". Or whatever. Given the stakes, you should probably do some user testing on your interface to ensure that your customers understand it. Moreover, you must not embed your button that costs $400 to touch in an environment where everything else costs $1.99 or $2.99 or, at most, perhaps $9.99. If you're making an app for writing checks, that's okay, but it should look like an app for writing checks and be installed in the "check-writing apps" section of the store, so that people have plenty of environmental signals warning what they're getting into. You should not embed your "empty my bank account" button in a screenful of silly games that appeal to drunk people in bars. Finally, a button that costs $400 to touch should have an undo option if at all possible. The undo option should not force people to read their credit card bills and institute a chargeback, which is a depressing pain in the neck. If you casually disobey these design rules because you're conducting an "experiment", you are a sociopath and nobody should do business with you. Apple is no longer doing business with this person. Smart move.
- smokey_the_bear 17y ago
  The app store has a confirmation dialog after you press the buy button. Additionally, Apple emails you a summary of all your itunes purchases, and you can return the app via itunes within 90 days, pretty much no questions asked.
- cookiecaper 17y ago
  Almost none of that is in any app developer's control. That's all on the Apple side of things.
  - derefr 17y ago

protomyth 17y ago

These two variable problems are such a pain. I would bet it was more for the experiment in pricing than the rant.

matthew-wegner 17y ago
Likely so. It's worth noting that Apple maintains a 90-day return policy on App Store purchases, though, so it's not like Tommy was screwing customers out of their money.
- protomyth 17y ago
  Thinking about it, the app probably has a high number of returns then. That would probably trigger Apple's wrath.
  - matthew-wegner 17y ago
    I asked Tommy--it's had 12 returns (which is ~20%).
gabrielroth 17y ago
Agreed. The price-raising is an interesting experiment but you can see why Apple might object to their store being used for an experiment. It would be nice if they'd also (a) tell the guy why they kicked him off, and (b) set a new policy on pricing that prevents stuff like this. Even better would be (c) allowing him to reapply on the condition that he keep to the new pricing policy.
- cookiecaper 17y ago
  A policy that says "you can't experiment with your price"? That doesn't sound well-informed. The guy wasn't doing anything wrong, he was just trying to maximize the income potential. If you don't allow vendors to experiment with prices, you're not a very good distribution channel.

joeld42 17y ago

Kind of undercuts his argument "look I can put crap in the appstore and sell it $300" when it gets pulled.

johnfn 17y ago
I think his argument was more along the lines of "people will buy overpriced crap" than "apple won't pull overpriced crap from the store".

wrs 17y ago

Presumably, people misread the price (299 = 2.99) and Apple got tired of the credit card chargebacks. The App Store agreement is one of the most one-sided things I've ever seen. Pulling the app is one of the nicer things they could have done to punish this behavior. For example, on a return, the app store agreement allows Apple to take the full sale price from the developer's account, keeping the 30% commission. So for each return of a $300 app, the developer could take a $90 loss! I don't know if Apple actually takes advantage of this clause.

kevinh 17y ago
IANAL, but I doubt that part of the contract would hold up in court. When looking at contracts, the court tends to favor the little guy, and I'm certain that app developers could argue that Apple was unjustly enriched by the contract. Now, I'm hardly a source of reputable knowledge, as my only experience with law is only one quarter of Business Law in college, but I could see the case going either way.
- Frazzydee 17y ago
  I think practical concerns would prevail here. If Apple only exercises this clause for developers who insult the King, there won't be enough plantiffs for a class action, and it would be too expensive for Joe the Developer to take Apple to court himself. He might go to small claims court, but most will just take the loss.
alex_c 17y ago
299.99 = 2.99?
cubicle67 17y ago
> For example, on a return, the app store agreement allows Apple to take the full sale price from the developer's account, keeping the 30% commission. So for each return of a $300 app, the developer could take a $90 loss! This is incorrect. I know it came up a few months ago and caused a lot of fuss, but it's still incorrect. What is correct is that Apple may take the full amount they paid the developer. for example, if a customer requested a refund for a $300 app, this would cost the developer $210 and Apple $90.

Qz 17y ago

The main issue here is not that Apple can and will do this kind of thing, it's the whole cloud of secrecy that shrouds how they decide this type of thing.

mkramlich 17y ago

I suspect the whole thing, on the dev's part, was a PR ploy. Everything about it seems juvenile too.

mechanical_fish 17y ago

Possibility 2: Zits & Giggles' creators also kept raising the price of their game — as an experiment — up to $400 as of last week. What we have here is a textbook case of "burying the lede". The headline on this article is ridiculous linkbait. Here's are some simple UX design rules: There should be no point on a phone's screen which costs $400 to touch. If you absolutely must have a button which costs $400 to touch, it should have a UI that works hard to communicate this to the user and to make it very difficult to do so by accident. Think: Confirmation dialog with RED warning message containing words like "$400". Or whatever. Given the stakes, you should probably do some user testing on your interface to ensure that your customers understand it. Moreover, you must not embed your button that costs $400 to touch in an environment where everything else costs $1.99 or $2.99 or, at most, perhaps $9.99. If you're making an app for writing checks, that's okay, but it should look like an app for writing checks and be installed in the "check-writing apps" section of the store, so that people have plenty of environmental signals warning what they're getting into. You should not embed your "empty my bank account" button in a screenful of silly games that appeal to drunk people in bars. Finally, a button that costs $400 to touch should have an undo option if at all possible. The undo option should not force people to read their credit card bills and institute a chargeback, which is a depressing pain in the neck. If you casually disobey these design rules because you're conducting an "experiment", you are a sociopath and nobody should do business with you. Apple is no longer doing business with this person. Smart move.

smokey_the_bear 17y ago
The app store has a confirmation dialog after you press the buy button. Additionally, Apple emails you a summary of all your itunes purchases, and you can return the app via itunes within 90 days, pretty much no questions asked.
cookiecaper 17y ago
Almost none of that is in any app developer's control. That's all on the Apple side of things.
- derefr 17y ago