14 ms·

I worked on an app that is in the same category as Netflix. A week before launch, Apple chose to reject us in spite of months of meetings and reviews with their

by madrox 8y ago

I worked on an app that is in the same category as Netflix. A week before launch, Apple chose to reject us in spite of months of meetings and reviews with their app teams and assurances we were in-bounds since we were working with them for launch featuring. It came down to the fact we required an email address and password for IAP so you could bring your subscription to the web or other platforms. While everyone else in the category did this, they decided that policy was going to change and we were just going to be the first people to deal with it. Since having an email-based account was core to the architecture and the UX, I went through a week of refactor hell to make emails/passwords optional to meet our launch date. Since other apps still get to do this, it's clear the policy change message was BS. I've suspected a lot has had to do with Apple's ambitions in the streaming space and their desire to be in a position to offer bundling and other over the top services. They're already trying to control the UX with the TV app and are offering companies better rev share rates to do the integration work. It seems like Netflix is daring Apple to pull them from the store. If that's what's happening then I applaud them. I understand that Apple may think they're protecting the consumer by creating a walled garden, but as a developer whose livelihood is tied to their decisions, I'm tired of being jerked around.

IBM 8y ago
They won't pull the Netflix app, they just won't let it update until they've made changes. Spotify tried directing users to the web and that's what happened with them.
- vbezhenar 8y ago
  What if Spotify would make their app using JavaScript (something like React Native or Cordova) with ability to update bypassing AppStore?
  - BeefySwain 8y ago
    They would reject the update that attempted to roll out that system.
    - Teknoman117 8y ago
      Except that bunches of apps with that model are being accepted now.
      - josephcooney 8y ago
        That doesn't matter. The app store review process isn't an impartial court of law, where everyone gets a fair hearing. If apple want to do things for competitive or capricious reasons, they can.
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        Live-updating apps are fine. One that attempts to use that functionality to get around the App Store's guidelines, especially one as prominent as Spotify's, will be noticed and yanked from the store.
  - wilsonnb3 8y ago
    If I was Spotify, the absolute last thing I would want to do is piss off Apple seeing as Apple Music is their main competitor right now.
Donzo 8y ago
I actually just let my membership to their developer program lapse after 4 years. In addition to having to pay money to develop on their platform, the return I get is questionable. The straw was that they're forcing me to republish old programs, just to force them through their new compliance tunnels. Frankly, I'm sick of their hoops and their walled-garden. I'm ok with forcing users to the browser now. Amazon does it for digital sales.
- threeseed 8y ago
  I think you're being a bit disingenuous here. The point of republishing old programs is to make sure they are running against the latest SDK. This is an important aspect for the ecosystem. It forces apps to work properly on the latest OS as well as support technologies like App Thinning. It's not just to mess you around for compliance reasons.
  - Donzo 8y ago
    A website from 1996 will look much the same in a modern version of Chrome. Good luck with your SDKs.
    - threeseed 8y ago
      What a hilarious statement to make. Sure a website from 1996 will look the same. It will also have no accessibility, work terribly on mobile, be largely like reading a Word document and have none of the interesting features of modern web sites. Your world is not the world most people want.
      - electic 8y ago
        Hacker News is one such site that is very basic and has none of the stuff you outline as modern features. You know what? It is by far one of the most performant and enjoyable websites I use daily.
        8y ago
tommymachine 8y ago
IIRC, even YouTube subscriptions initiated on an iPhone don't transfer cleanly over to the web.
threeseed 8y ago
> but as a developer whose livelihood is tied to their decisions, I'm tired of being jerked around. I am a developer of a dozen very popular apps and I couldn't disagree more with your position. Developers having a wonderful experience or sustained livelihood isn't the goal here. It's to make sure consumers are protected and cared for. As Tim Cook would put it that's their North Star.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Shebanator 8y ago
  I agree that this is mostly how Apple views things, but what you said doesn't contradict the post you replied to at all. He is a developer whose livelihood is dependent on Apple, and he is tired of being jerked around. Just because Apple doesn't prioritize his problems doesn't make that untrue.
  - tommymachine 8y ago
    I don’t think the parent argued that his feelings of frustration are somehow untrue, but was just pointing out that they have to be weighed against the billions of users that Apple decides to prioritize for. Preventing a constant “go to our sketchy website and put in your credit card” experience for IAPs is likely a smart trade off vs a couple weeks of developer frustration surrounding honoring external purchases. Also, I’m still not clear on how OC’s app was treated differently than others in the space. From his description it doesn’t sound out of the ordinary to me, but I suppose it’s possible I’m misunderstanding something.
gesman 8y ago
Building business that solely relies on constant mercy of someone else's platform is an extremely risky endeavor to begin with.
- Barrin92 8y ago
  And virtually unavoidable in the smartphone app space because of the gatekeeping function of the stores. I don't know exactly how we got here given that nobody would have accepted this sort of curation on a desktop, but we somehow just walked into it on our phones.
  - wvenable 8y ago
    You have to get there from the start; the app store has to be there from day one. Since that didn't happen on the desktop, it's pretty hard to retroactively introduce one (although Microsoft is trying hard).
    - omegabravo 8y ago
      Which major operating system doesn't have an app store equivalent?
      - simonh 8y ago
        Thats being pretty pedantic. Introduce one successfully is a pretty obvious implication. Even after almost a decade of desktop app stores they’re still really struggling to get user acceptance outside a few niches. In fact the only one I’d count as an actual commercial success is Steam.
        omegabravo 8y ago
        indeed, my mistake I misunderstood the post
        simonh 8y ago
dmead 8y ago
Isn't that illegal? Didn't Microsoft lose a huge case about IE just like this?
- ripdog 8y ago
  Only because Microsoft was in a monopoly position in it's market. Apple isn't, and thus is not subject to the same oversight. Not that the current administration is going to be performing any anti-trust litigation anyway.
  - takeda 8y ago
    We currently have duopoly which is not much better than actual monopoly. The reason we don't have anti trust litigation is because neither GOP and DEMs are interested to do it and that's because these companies since them got smarter and heavily lobby. Corruption all the way.
    - lemoncucumber 8y ago
      When you write DEM in all caps just because GOP is written in all caps, you sound like one of the people who write MAC in all caps just because PC is all caps.
    - neonhomer 8y ago
      The duopoly of iOs/Android is still far better than the duopoly of democrat/republican.
  - sjy 8y ago
    Whether Apple is in a monopoly position (with respect to the market for iOS apps) is an open question, really: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper
    - mrep 8y ago
      Interesting, the supreme court is hearing that case currently which makes these articles very convenient timing wise: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-18/apple-gets-u-s-supreme-court-review-on-iphone-app-fee-suit https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-18/apple-get...
kitsunesoba 8y ago
> They're already trying to control the UX with the TV app and are offering companies better rev share rates to do the integration work. To be fair, that’s not the only reason the TV app was created. Most notably: – Users want a single place to keep track of all the shows they’re following across all services. Streaming services weren’t coming up with a cooperative solution for this, so Apple did it instead. – Plainly put, a large chunk (if not most) streaming service apps suck. The TV app adds value by letting users skip the choppy, inconsistent, badly organized, lowest-bidder browsing UIs so many streaming service apps have and get straight to watching this week’s episode. I like the TV app and wish it did more. I wouldn’t be bothered if I never had to open a service-specific app again. All I need is a clean, frustration free way to browse the libraries of the services I subscribe to.
- sametmax 8y ago
  On the other hand, Apple controlling the UI means, as usual, they kill other services ability to innovate. But most apple users don't care to have very limited capabilities as long as the core value is here and it's streamlined in the apple experience. Hell, they used a phone without copy/paste for a long time and it didn't bother them.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    If you think other media streaming companies can "innovate" with their interfaces, you're not a cable cutter (I refuse to say cord cutter, my home internet still comes over a cord) who subscribes to Netflix, Hulu, and Directv. Netflix's interface is horrible on both the Apple TV 4 and modern Rokus. It has a much better interface on the 3rd generation AppleTV where "apps" were limited to just for, all intents and purposed, glorified web apps. They were all running on top of WebKit using a combination of JavaScript and Apple's markup language.
    - sametmax 8y ago
      Glorified webapps can't pre-download 50 go of tv shows for my next holidays in the deep country sides. You need file system access for that.
scarface74 8y ago
It came down to the fact we required an email address and password for IAP so you could bring your subscription to the web or other platforms. While everyone else in the category did this, they decided that policy was going to change and we were just going to be the first people to deal with it. Since having an email-based account was core to the architecture and the UX, I went through a week of refactor hell to make emails/passwords optional to meet our launch date. Are you sure that’s the only reason? I can do in app purchases with Udemy that required an account to be used everywhere. I also know that Hulu, Pluralsight, Netflix, and Evernote all work this way.
- kbenson 8y ago
  The rest of the comment noted that it wasn't exactly a fair reason, but it was apparently the one given. > Since other apps still get to do this, it's clear the policy change message was BS.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mbesto 8y ago
> but as a developer whose livelihood is tied to their decisions, I'm tired of being jerked around. Let me get this straight. A for-profit company providing a marketplace that has allowed you to sustain a livelihood as a developer is now be considered as "jerking you around". This is truly fascinating.
- EB66 8y ago
  Is it surprising? No. Is it being "jerked around"? Absolutely. A company wielding their quasi-monopoly power to change the rules of the game at the last minute on a whim is precisely what I'd call being "jerked around".

by madrox 8y ago

IBM 8y ago

They won't pull the Netflix app, they just won't let it update until they've made changes. Spotify tried directing users to the web and that's what happened with them.

vbezhenar 8y ago
What if Spotify would make their app using JavaScript (something like React Native or Cordova) with ability to update bypassing AppStore?
- BeefySwain 8y ago
  They would reject the update that attempted to roll out that system.
  - Teknoman117 8y ago
    Except that bunches of apps with that model are being accepted now.
    - josephcooney 8y ago
      That doesn't matter. The app store review process isn't an impartial court of law, where everyone gets a fair hearing. If apple want to do things for competitive or capricious reasons, they can.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      Live-updating apps are fine. One that attempts to use that functionality to get around the App Store's guidelines, especially one as prominent as Spotify's, will be noticed and yanked from the store.
- wilsonnb3 8y ago
  If I was Spotify, the absolute last thing I would want to do is piss off Apple seeing as Apple Music is their main competitor right now.

Donzo 8y ago

I actually just let my membership to their developer program lapse after 4 years. In addition to having to pay money to develop on their platform, the return I get is questionable. The straw was that they're forcing me to republish old programs, just to force them through their new compliance tunnels. Frankly, I'm sick of their hoops and their walled-garden. I'm ok with forcing users to the browser now. Amazon does it for digital sales.

threeseed 8y ago
I think you're being a bit disingenuous here. The point of republishing old programs is to make sure they are running against the latest SDK. This is an important aspect for the ecosystem. It forces apps to work properly on the latest OS as well as support technologies like App Thinning. It's not just to mess you around for compliance reasons.
- Donzo 8y ago
  A website from 1996 will look much the same in a modern version of Chrome. Good luck with your SDKs.
  - threeseed 8y ago
    What a hilarious statement to make. Sure a website from 1996 will look the same. It will also have no accessibility, work terribly on mobile, be largely like reading a Word document and have none of the interesting features of modern web sites. Your world is not the world most people want.
    - electic 8y ago
      Hacker News is one such site that is very basic and has none of the stuff you outline as modern features. You know what? It is by far one of the most performant and enjoyable websites I use daily.
      - 8y ago

tommymachine 8y ago

IIRC, even YouTube subscriptions initiated on an iPhone don't transfer cleanly over to the web.

threeseed 8y ago

> but as a developer whose livelihood is tied to their decisions, I'm tired of being jerked around. I am a developer of a dozen very popular apps and I couldn't disagree more with your position. Developers having a wonderful experience or sustained livelihood isn't the goal here. It's to make sure consumers are protected and cared for. As Tim Cook would put it that's their North Star.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Shebanator 8y ago
I agree that this is mostly how Apple views things, but what you said doesn't contradict the post you replied to at all. He is a developer whose livelihood is dependent on Apple, and he is tired of being jerked around. Just because Apple doesn't prioritize his problems doesn't make that untrue.
- tommymachine 8y ago
  I don’t think the parent argued that his feelings of frustration are somehow untrue, but was just pointing out that they have to be weighed against the billions of users that Apple decides to prioritize for. Preventing a constant “go to our sketchy website and put in your credit card” experience for IAPs is likely a smart trade off vs a couple weeks of developer frustration surrounding honoring external purchases. Also, I’m still not clear on how OC’s app was treated differently than others in the space. From his description it doesn’t sound out of the ordinary to me, but I suppose it’s possible I’m misunderstanding something.

gesman 8y ago

Building business that solely relies on constant mercy of someone else's platform is an extremely risky endeavor to begin with.

Barrin92 8y ago
And virtually unavoidable in the smartphone app space because of the gatekeeping function of the stores. I don't know exactly how we got here given that nobody would have accepted this sort of curation on a desktop, but we somehow just walked into it on our phones.
- wvenable 8y ago
  You have to get there from the start; the app store has to be there from day one. Since that didn't happen on the desktop, it's pretty hard to retroactively introduce one (although Microsoft is trying hard).
  - omegabravo 8y ago
    Which major operating system doesn't have an app store equivalent?
    - simonh 8y ago
      Thats being pretty pedantic. Introduce one successfully is a pretty obvious implication. Even after almost a decade of desktop app stores they’re still really struggling to get user acceptance outside a few niches. In fact the only one I’d count as an actual commercial success is Steam.
      - omegabravo 8y ago
        indeed, my mistake I misunderstood the post
        simonh 8y ago

dmead 8y ago

Isn't that illegal? Didn't Microsoft lose a huge case about IE just like this?

ripdog 8y ago
Only because Microsoft was in a monopoly position in it's market. Apple isn't, and thus is not subject to the same oversight. Not that the current administration is going to be performing any anti-trust litigation anyway.
- takeda 8y ago
  We currently have duopoly which is not much better than actual monopoly. The reason we don't have anti trust litigation is because neither GOP and DEMs are interested to do it and that's because these companies since them got smarter and heavily lobby. Corruption all the way.
  - lemoncucumber 8y ago
    When you write DEM in all caps just because GOP is written in all caps, you sound like one of the people who write MAC in all caps just because PC is all caps.
  - neonhomer 8y ago
    The duopoly of iOs/Android is still far better than the duopoly of democrat/republican.
- sjy 8y ago
  Whether Apple is in a monopoly position (with respect to the market for iOS apps) is an open question, really: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc._v._Pepper
  - mrep 8y ago
    Interesting, the supreme court is hearing that case currently which makes these articles very convenient timing wise: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-18/apple-gets-u-s-supreme-court-review-on-iphone-app-fee-suit https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-18/apple-get...

kitsunesoba 8y ago

> They're already trying to control the UX with the TV app and are offering companies better rev share rates to do the integration work. To be fair, that’s not the only reason the TV app was created. Most notably: – Users want a single place to keep track of all the shows they’re following across all services. Streaming services weren’t coming up with a cooperative solution for this, so Apple did it instead. – Plainly put, a large chunk (if not most) streaming service apps suck. The TV app adds value by letting users skip the choppy, inconsistent, badly organized, lowest-bidder browsing UIs so many streaming service apps have and get straight to watching this week’s episode. I like the TV app and wish it did more. I wouldn’t be bothered if I never had to open a service-specific app again. All I need is a clean, frustration free way to browse the libraries of the services I subscribe to.

sametmax 8y ago
On the other hand, Apple controlling the UI means, as usual, they kill other services ability to innovate. But most apple users don't care to have very limited capabilities as long as the core value is here and it's streamlined in the apple experience. Hell, they used a phone without copy/paste for a long time and it didn't bother them.
- scarface74 8y ago
  If you think other media streaming companies can "innovate" with their interfaces, you're not a cable cutter (I refuse to say cord cutter, my home internet still comes over a cord) who subscribes to Netflix, Hulu, and Directv. Netflix's interface is horrible on both the Apple TV 4 and modern Rokus. It has a much better interface on the 3rd generation AppleTV where "apps" were limited to just for, all intents and purposed, glorified web apps. They were all running on top of WebKit using a combination of JavaScript and Apple's markup language.
  - sametmax 8y ago
    Glorified webapps can't pre-download 50 go of tv shows for my next holidays in the deep country sides. You need file system access for that.

scarface74 8y ago

It came down to the fact we required an email address and password for IAP so you could bring your subscription to the web or other platforms. While everyone else in the category did this, they decided that policy was going to change and we were just going to be the first people to deal with it. Since having an email-based account was core to the architecture and the UX, I went through a week of refactor hell to make emails/passwords optional to meet our launch date. Are you sure that’s the only reason? I can do in app purchases with Udemy that required an account to be used everywhere. I also know that Hulu, Pluralsight, Netflix, and Evernote all work this way.

kbenson 8y ago
The rest of the comment noted that it wasn't exactly a fair reason, but it was apparently the one given. > Since other apps still get to do this, it's clear the policy change message was BS.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mbesto 8y ago

> but as a developer whose livelihood is tied to their decisions, I'm tired of being jerked around. Let me get this straight. A for-profit company providing a marketplace that has allowed you to sustain a livelihood as a developer is now be considered as "jerking you around". This is truly fascinating.

EB66 8y ago
Is it surprising? No. Is it being "jerked around"? Absolutely. A company wielding their quasi-monopoly power to change the rules of the game at the last minute on a whim is precisely what I'd call being "jerked around".