4 ms·

It's definitely not preferable, but if 37Signals adds an in-app purchase and charges $130 instead of $99, would Apple approve the App? Maybe as a protest they s

It's definitely not preferable, but if 37Signals adds an in-app purchase and charges $130 instead of $99, would Apple approve the App? Maybe as a protest they should charge $200 in-App :P

alberth 6y ago
Again, just playing devils advocate and using the brick and mortar store example. If I sold my widget online direct to consumer for $99 and got to pocket all of that. Why wouldn’t I assume that if I tried to sell my widget inside of the brick and mortar store for the same $99, that they wouldn’t want to make margin on selling my widget for me - which would reduce my take home profit
- Jasper_ 6y ago
  Margins on brick and mortar are extremely thin -- 3-4% overhead is considered excellent.
- quantummkv 6y ago
  The meat of the issue here is that you cannot sell your widget directly online to consumers. Apple does not allow that. You have to always sell through the Apple store and always pay that margin whether you want to or not. To use the brick and mortar store analogy, would you be happy if you were forced to sell only through Walmart (and thus paying their margin) and not directly to customers, even when you are completely capable of doing it?
  - alberth 6y ago
    Devils advocate. Why can’t they sell this direct to consumer in iOS via safari? And make it a web app on mobile just like how it’s a web app on desktop.
    - aspenmayer 6y ago
      For your analogy to hold, we should be able to run a PWA in the same sandbox as iOS apps with the same access to hardware as a native iOS app. Why doesn’t iOS Safari have these capabilities? Why can’t we download apps and sideload them in the same type of sandbox that App Store sourced apps do? There’s already an interoperability exemption for jailbreaking. I hope that this precedent is reinforced and expanded through lawsuits and legislation if Apple won’t implement first-party sideloading support willingly. It’s a matter of equal access to technology and accessibility of tools. To own a thing is to be able to adapt it and make it work the way you need, as well as the way you want. The first sale doctrine applies to software too. Clickwrap EULAs are not always legally binding, and you cannot arbitrate away certain unalienable rights. If I own a thing, I can modify or disassemble it, as well as sell it or otherwise transfer it. These concepts need to be enforced more specifically for digital assets such as apps and mobile operating systems.
    - quantummkv 6y ago
      It already is a web app that you can use of safari on iOS without problems. But native apps provide a lot of benefits like push notifications, offline data storage and support, home screen icon, etc, especially for a mail app.
      - perryizgr8 6y ago
        All those things are possible for PWAs, just not on ios.
nickelpro 6y ago
I don't get this controversy at all. If Apple requires a 30% cut of in-app purchases, raise in-app prices 30% and provide a link to a 30% "discount" version through your website. Is that also against an Apple rule? If so I can somewhat understand. EDIT: You can upcharge IAP purchases, but you can't advertise the cheaper alternative. That's wildly anti-consumer on Apple's part, surely the EU can't be happy about that kind of situation?
- rydre 6y ago
  It used to be disallowed, but now they allow you to upcharge IAP purchases. Either way, the situation is terrible for consumers and developers alike.
  - lifty 6y ago
    I didn’t know that they allow different prices. A few days ago someone replied to my comment on HN and told me that it’s not allowed. If indeed it’s allowed, I think it’s more reasonable for Apple to require app makers to offer the IAP signup option.
  - brandon272 6y ago
    Yes, I find it hard to believe that YouTube charging 30% or 40% more for a YouTube Premium subscription through iOS and not telling the customer that they are paying a vastly inflated price because Apple insists on getting a cut is protecting or advocating for consumers in any way, shape or form.

It's definitely not preferable, but if 37Signals adds an in-app purchase and charges $130 instead of $99, would Apple approve the App? Maybe as a protest they should charge $200 in-App :P

alberth 6y ago

Again, just playing devils advocate and using the brick and mortar store example. If I sold my widget online direct to consumer for $99 and got to pocket all of that. Why wouldn’t I assume that if I tried to sell my widget inside of the brick and mortar store for the same $99, that they wouldn’t want to make margin on selling my widget for me - which would reduce my take home profit

Jasper_ 6y ago
Margins on brick and mortar are extremely thin -- 3-4% overhead is considered excellent.
quantummkv 6y ago
The meat of the issue here is that you cannot sell your widget directly online to consumers. Apple does not allow that. You have to always sell through the Apple store and always pay that margin whether you want to or not. To use the brick and mortar store analogy, would you be happy if you were forced to sell only through Walmart (and thus paying their margin) and not directly to customers, even when you are completely capable of doing it?
- alberth 6y ago
  Devils advocate. Why can’t they sell this direct to consumer in iOS via safari? And make it a web app on mobile just like how it’s a web app on desktop.
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    For your analogy to hold, we should be able to run a PWA in the same sandbox as iOS apps with the same access to hardware as a native iOS app. Why doesn’t iOS Safari have these capabilities? Why can’t we download apps and sideload them in the same type of sandbox that App Store sourced apps do? There’s already an interoperability exemption for jailbreaking. I hope that this precedent is reinforced and expanded through lawsuits and legislation if Apple won’t implement first-party sideloading support willingly. It’s a matter of equal access to technology and accessibility of tools. To own a thing is to be able to adapt it and make it work the way you need, as well as the way you want. The first sale doctrine applies to software too. Clickwrap EULAs are not always legally binding, and you cannot arbitrate away certain unalienable rights. If I own a thing, I can modify or disassemble it, as well as sell it or otherwise transfer it. These concepts need to be enforced more specifically for digital assets such as apps and mobile operating systems.
  - quantummkv 6y ago
    It already is a web app that you can use of safari on iOS without problems. But native apps provide a lot of benefits like push notifications, offline data storage and support, home screen icon, etc, especially for a mail app.
    - perryizgr8 6y ago
      All those things are possible for PWAs, just not on ios.

nickelpro 6y ago

I don't get this controversy at all. If Apple requires a 30% cut of in-app purchases, raise in-app prices 30% and provide a link to a 30% "discount" version through your website. Is that also against an Apple rule? If so I can somewhat understand. EDIT: You can upcharge IAP purchases, but you can't advertise the cheaper alternative. That's wildly anti-consumer on Apple's part, surely the EU can't be happy about that kind of situation?

rydre 6y ago
It used to be disallowed, but now they allow you to upcharge IAP purchases. Either way, the situation is terrible for consumers and developers alike.
- lifty 6y ago
  I didn’t know that they allow different prices. A few days ago someone replied to my comment on HN and told me that it’s not allowed. If indeed it’s allowed, I think it’s more reasonable for Apple to require app makers to offer the IAP signup option.
- brandon272 6y ago
  Yes, I find it hard to believe that YouTube charging 30% or 40% more for a YouTube Premium subscription through iOS and not telling the customer that they are paying a vastly inflated price because Apple insists on getting a cut is protecting or advocating for consumers in any way, shape or form.