7 ms·

I've seen at least one company use the Enterprise program to circumvent paying Apple 30%. One company I know preloads their app on an iPad, resells the iPad and

I've seen at least one company use the Enterprise program to circumvent paying Apple 30%. One company I know preloads their app on an iPad, resells the iPad and associated hardware, and charges a subscription to use the app.

saagarjha 8y ago
There are apps that straight up jailbreak your phone distributed under enterprise certificates.
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  And as the owner of a Jailbroken iPhone, I'm quite happy they exist!
Swenrekcah 8y ago
Good for them, Apple’s 30% is more akin to extortion than a fair distribution fee.
- ehsankia 8y ago
  It's not only a distribution fee. Someone had to develop the frameworks, the APIs, the OS and all the other systems that allows for your App to exist. These things aren't free and take resources to make and run. We can argue about the exact % but people often take all the work that goes behind the scene for granted. Same for Youtube and any other platform. We're just so used to having it all for free that we forget the sheer amount of work that goes into making and maintaining the platform.
  - Operyl 8y ago
    Ok. But that’s also baked into the cost of the device at sale. If we’re talking about the App Store, bandwidth, redistribution, etc that it provides sure. But .. I don’t agree with your listed examples.
    - sokoloff 8y ago
      I disagree. Apple works on its development ecosystem in part because they know doing so drives App Store revenue. It's not like "Oh yeah, we build all these dev tools, documentation, and libraries, but that's only because we sell the hardware. If we shut down the App Store tomorrow, we'd keep making all the dev tools with the same level of investment."
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
        I assume this is why there aren't any dev tools, documentation, or libraries available for macOS. Developing for the Mac must be absurdly difficult! Edit: This was sarcasm.
      - kalleboo 8y ago
        At the same time, without apps, nobody would buy an iPhone. Apple didn't pull Facebooks app from the store because it would have a huge impact on iPhone sales.
  - ndnxhs 8y ago
    Sell the development tools then and allow people to make their own. Then the market will quickly work out if its worth it or build an open source version.
- xvector 8y ago
  Most online marketplaces cost 30% - Steam, Google Play, App Store. That doesn’t make it alright, but no one is forcing you to write apps for iOS either.
  - tobyhinloopen 8y ago
    These examples can be bypassed. You can release a pc game without steam, release an android app without google. But apple? Nope
    - votepaunchy 8y ago
      Android is not Google Play. You cannot release a Google Play app without paying Google.
      - jedberg 8y ago
        No but you can release an Android app without Google. You can't release an Apple app without Apple.
        darkpuma 8y ago
        Exactly. You can distribute raw APKs. You can put your app on FDroid. You can put your app on the Amazon Appstore. You can create your own appstore to compete with Google's and Amazon's and FDroid. There are a lot of problems with Android, but an appstore monopoly isn't one of them.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Seeing that you are and have always been allowed to sell a subscription outside of the App Store and still distribute within the store, you don’t need an enterprise certificate to do that as long as your app meets the guidelines. Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, Spotify, DirectvNOW, Sling, and quite a few other apps don’t allow in app subscriptions. There are others that you can subscribe to inside or out of the app.
  - Rebelgecko 8y ago
    It's technically allowed but not easy unless most of your business is outside of the app. App store guidelines ban having a link in your app to an external subscription website. They also ban "calls to action" that encourage customers to purchase non in-app purchases
    - scarface74 8y ago
      All of my “business” for each of those products is within the app. There has never been a ban about requiring subscriptions outside of the app, you can’t have a link to an outside website that is true.
      - jedberg 8y ago
        The only reason they get away with that is because you're willing to sign up and pay at an external website that you can find on your own. Most apps would lose most of their customers at the "now go find our website and how to pay without any help" step.
        scarface74 8y ago
        So in other words, Apple is providing a valuable service and the 30% is a customer acquisition cost? As opposed to the 60%-70% that software developers use to have to pay retailers?
        thekyle 8y ago
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  Additional specificity might be helpful: There is nothing wrong with Apple charging a 30% fee on App Store Purchases, or purchases made in-app via Apple's framework. I suspect just about everyone will agree on this point. The "extortion" part is the complete and total ban on purchases made outside the App Store.
Robin_Message 8y ago
That seems entirely legitimate and in no way harms the consumer, which is what the app store is always claiming to prevent. You bought it, you get to chose what code runs on it, and DRM shouldn't be used to prevent that.
- kerbs 8y ago
  I would highly recommend reading the recent articles about the reasons for Facebook and Google’s certificates being revoked. It is not because the apps were nefarious.
  - scarface74 8y ago
    Did you read what FB apps actually do? Would you put an app on your phone that can record anything you do in any app?
    - kerbs 8y ago
      Yes, the app was terrible. The Apple Enterprise terms simply state you cannot distribute to the general public. It doesn't matter that the app was terrible, the violation itself was much more boring.
  - nacs 8y ago
    > It is not because the apps were nefarious. The FB app targetted young people and literally installed a VPN profile that routed all internet traffic through Facebook servers. Essentially full network packet-capture of everyone who installed their app. That's the definition of nefarious.
    - chii 8y ago
      The user did decide to install the app, it wasn't forced onto them. As long as user consented, the app should be allowed to do anything.
      - 8y ago
seanalltogether 8y ago
Hell I developed apps for at least two clients that did close enough to this. Is an authorized dealer/installer an employee of the one of the companies whos products they sell? No. Do we need to find ways to get apps to them that aren't relevant to the consumer market. Yes. Enterprise apps are a release valve for the constraints imposed by Apple on the app store, if they clamp down too hard they risk more businesses moving over to android.

saagarjha 8y ago

There are apps that straight up jailbreak your phone distributed under enterprise certificates.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago
And as the owner of a Jailbroken iPhone, I'm quite happy they exist!

Swenrekcah 8y ago

Good for them, Apple’s 30% is more akin to extortion than a fair distribution fee.

ehsankia 8y ago
It's not only a distribution fee. Someone had to develop the frameworks, the APIs, the OS and all the other systems that allows for your App to exist. These things aren't free and take resources to make and run. We can argue about the exact % but people often take all the work that goes behind the scene for granted. Same for Youtube and any other platform. We're just so used to having it all for free that we forget the sheer amount of work that goes into making and maintaining the platform.
- Operyl 8y ago
  Ok. But that’s also baked into the cost of the device at sale. If we’re talking about the App Store, bandwidth, redistribution, etc that it provides sure. But .. I don’t agree with your listed examples.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    I disagree. Apple works on its development ecosystem in part because they know doing so drives App Store revenue. It's not like "Oh yeah, we build all these dev tools, documentation, and libraries, but that's only because we sell the hardware. If we shut down the App Store tomorrow, we'd keep making all the dev tools with the same level of investment."
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - Wowfunhappy 8y ago
      I assume this is why there aren't any dev tools, documentation, or libraries available for macOS. Developing for the Mac must be absurdly difficult! Edit: This was sarcasm.
    - kalleboo 8y ago
      At the same time, without apps, nobody would buy an iPhone. Apple didn't pull Facebooks app from the store because it would have a huge impact on iPhone sales.
- ndnxhs 8y ago
  Sell the development tools then and allow people to make their own. Then the market will quickly work out if its worth it or build an open source version.
xvector 8y ago
Most online marketplaces cost 30% - Steam, Google Play, App Store. That doesn’t make it alright, but no one is forcing you to write apps for iOS either.
- tobyhinloopen 8y ago
  These examples can be bypassed. You can release a pc game without steam, release an android app without google. But apple? Nope
  - votepaunchy 8y ago
    Android is not Google Play. You cannot release a Google Play app without paying Google.
    - jedberg 8y ago
      No but you can release an Android app without Google. You can't release an Apple app without Apple.
      - darkpuma 8y ago
        Exactly. You can distribute raw APKs. You can put your app on FDroid. You can put your app on the Amazon Appstore. You can create your own appstore to compete with Google's and Amazon's and FDroid. There are a lot of problems with Android, but an appstore monopoly isn't one of them.
scarface74 8y ago
Seeing that you are and have always been allowed to sell a subscription outside of the App Store and still distribute within the store, you don’t need an enterprise certificate to do that as long as your app meets the guidelines. Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, Spotify, DirectvNOW, Sling, and quite a few other apps don’t allow in app subscriptions. There are others that you can subscribe to inside or out of the app.
- Rebelgecko 8y ago
  It's technically allowed but not easy unless most of your business is outside of the app. App store guidelines ban having a link in your app to an external subscription website. They also ban "calls to action" that encourage customers to purchase non in-app purchases
  - scarface74 8y ago
    All of my “business” for each of those products is within the app. There has never been a ban about requiring subscriptions outside of the app, you can’t have a link to an outside website that is true.
    - jedberg 8y ago
      The only reason they get away with that is because you're willing to sign up and pay at an external website that you can find on your own. Most apps would lose most of their customers at the "now go find our website and how to pay without any help" step.
      - scarface74 8y ago
        So in other words, Apple is providing a valuable service and the 30% is a customer acquisition cost? As opposed to the 60%-70% that software developers use to have to pay retailers?
        thekyle 8y ago
Wowfunhappy 8y ago
Additional specificity might be helpful: There is nothing wrong with Apple charging a 30% fee on App Store Purchases, or purchases made in-app via Apple's framework. I suspect just about everyone will agree on this point. The "extortion" part is the complete and total ban on purchases made outside the App Store.

Robin_Message 8y ago

That seems entirely legitimate and in no way harms the consumer, which is what the app store is always claiming to prevent. You bought it, you get to chose what code runs on it, and DRM shouldn't be used to prevent that.

kerbs 8y ago
I would highly recommend reading the recent articles about the reasons for Facebook and Google’s certificates being revoked. It is not because the apps were nefarious.
- scarface74 8y ago
  Did you read what FB apps actually do? Would you put an app on your phone that can record anything you do in any app?
  - kerbs 8y ago
    Yes, the app was terrible. The Apple Enterprise terms simply state you cannot distribute to the general public. It doesn't matter that the app was terrible, the violation itself was much more boring.
- nacs 8y ago
  > It is not because the apps were nefarious. The FB app targetted young people and literally installed a VPN profile that routed all internet traffic through Facebook servers. Essentially full network packet-capture of everyone who installed their app. That's the definition of nefarious.
  - chii 8y ago
    The user did decide to install the app, it wasn't forced onto them. As long as user consented, the app should be allowed to do anything.
    - 8y ago

seanalltogether 8y ago

Hell I developed apps for at least two clients that did close enough to this. Is an authorized dealer/installer an employee of the one of the companies whos products they sell? No. Do we need to find ways to get apps to them that aren't relevant to the consumer market. Yes. Enterprise apps are a release valve for the constraints imposed by Apple on the app store, if they clamp down too hard they risk more businesses moving over to android.