3 ms·

I was wondering if there might be a way around that rule by claiming that what you sold in-app was a different product from what you sold out-of-app (e.g. on yo

by thalur 16y ago

I was wondering if there might be a way around that rule by claiming that what you sold in-app was a different product from what you sold out-of-app (e.g. on your website), but I'm not sure it would really work. E.g. you sell the in-app "iPhone exclusive" version for $x and the out-of-app "everything except iPhone" version for ($x * 0.7) and then provide a "works on iPhone for no extra cost" special offer.

corin_ 16y ago
Or a seperate company/brand? If Spotify was called Spatify on the app store, operated by a company that's owned by Spotify, their product wouldn't have to match the pricing of Spotify products on non-apple platforms... and perhaps 'Spatify' could announce a deal that allows Spotify customers to use their product for free. Then it just comes down to whether Apple follow the rules by the letter, or apply common sense and tell Spotify not to take the piss.
- metageek 16y ago
  Yeah, but then Spotify users wouldn't find Spatify in the app store.
  - corin_ 16y ago
    Possibly they could call the sub-company "Spotify Magic" (random example - but something that will show up in search results for "spotify"), or possibly they could just ensure that Spatify gets well enough known for people to search for its new name. I suspect if any company did this they would put a lot more research and thought into it than I have for my two quick HN comments - I'm really just wondering what, if somebody took this approach, Apple's response would be.
    - true_religion 16y ago
      They could but Apple doesn't have to accept them into the App store. They can easily say "these two companies are the same", and enforce the same rules on them. They're not legalistic, they're moralistic.
Charuru 16y ago
Too bad apple can actually do whatever they want rather than working within a codified framework. Loopholes are not going to work.
- praptak 16y ago
  "Loopholes are not going to work." But the market is. No company is going to charge 30% extra on other platforms - competition would eat them there. So at worst there will be a split into Apple-only and No-Apple companies, at least for commodity repackaged content.
mattmcknight 16y ago
It reminds me of the "lowest advertised price" policy, where a workaround is that you don't see the discount until you add something to the shopping cart.

by thalur 16y ago

corin_ 16y ago

Or a seperate company/brand? If Spotify was called Spatify on the app store, operated by a company that's owned by Spotify, their product wouldn't have to match the pricing of Spotify products on non-apple platforms... and perhaps 'Spatify' could announce a deal that allows Spotify customers to use their product for free. Then it just comes down to whether Apple follow the rules by the letter, or apply common sense and tell Spotify not to take the piss.

metageek 16y ago
Yeah, but then Spotify users wouldn't find Spatify in the app store.
- corin_ 16y ago
  Possibly they could call the sub-company "Spotify Magic" (random example - but something that will show up in search results for "spotify"), or possibly they could just ensure that Spatify gets well enough known for people to search for its new name. I suspect if any company did this they would put a lot more research and thought into it than I have for my two quick HN comments - I'm really just wondering what, if somebody took this approach, Apple's response would be.
  - true_religion 16y ago
    They could but Apple doesn't have to accept them into the App store. They can easily say "these two companies are the same", and enforce the same rules on them. They're not legalistic, they're moralistic.

Charuru 16y ago

Too bad apple can actually do whatever they want rather than working within a codified framework. Loopholes are not going to work.

praptak 16y ago
"Loopholes are not going to work." But the market is. No company is going to charge 30% extra on other platforms - competition would eat them there. So at worst there will be a split into Apple-only and No-Apple companies, at least for commodity repackaged content.

mattmcknight 16y ago

It reminds me of the "lowest advertised price" policy, where a workaround is that you don't see the discount until you add something to the shopping cart.