4 ms·

I've been a freelance iOS app developer for almost a decade. Apple has always operated this way. They have rules that are somewhat vague, and they choose when t

I've been a freelance iOS app developer for almost a decade. Apple has always operated this way. They have rules that are somewhat vague, and they choose when they want to enforce them and how they should be interpreted. For example: you weren't allowed to show device bezels in app store screenshots for a long time, even though all the major apps did exactly that. If you were a small time developer though you would get rejected, sometimes, with that cited as a reason. There's currently the same problems with asking for app reviews. Everyone wants to filter users through the "do you like the app? Yes/No" popups to try and make sure only good reviews get through. It's explicitly stated in the app store guidelines that you have to use the system provided prompt that doesn't allow for that, but it's only selectively enforced. So if your competition is filtering reviews but you aren't allowed to, you're at a huge disadvantage. And there's plenty of other ambiguous rules like that. In app purchases being a major one. You could have your app on the store for a year and then suddenly get a rejection notice on a bugfix update that they don't like your payment setup. Point is: Apple will do absolutely whatever they want, and you have zero recourse. If you're a small developer it can kill you. Plenty of people will say "just follow the rules and you won't have a problem", but the rules are arbitrary and selectively enforced. For example, there was the Steam Link app debacle that Apple decided to reject after it's big release, and they literally just wrote new rules to exclude it[0]. And if they allowed alternative app stores I think you could excuse a lot of it. But they don't. And they never will unless they are forced to. 0: https://www.macworld.com/article/3276327/the-steam-link-app-for-ios-is-dead-rejected-by-apple.html https://www.macworld.com/article/3276327/the-steam-link-app-...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
zaroth 6y ago
Humans applying policy will be inconsistent. The alternative is Google where algorithms apply policy, and if they misapply a policy to you're simply screwed. I think the inverse to "Apple employed humans make a judgement call" is "Apple is no longer allowed to control their App Store". I don't like that option, because the curated App Store is a big reason why I bought an iPhone.
- mikenew 6y ago
  > Humans applying policy will be inconsistent. This is not my argument. It is not just inconsistent, it is selective. Major players are given far more leeway than small ones. There are obvious antitrust concerns, such as Spotify being required to give Apple 30% of it's revenue for it's service that competes with Apple Music[0]. There are concerns about freedom of speech and information, such as Apple removing an app that notified the user when there was a U.S. drone strike[1], or the Hong Kong protest app that China pressured them into removing. Or blocking all VPN apps in China. And even if the argument at the end of the day is "I don't care; I like having a curated app store", why does that imply that Apple should be able to force users into only using theirs? How do you lose anything if users are allowed to install apps from other places, in some cases where there are serious human rights issues at stake? 0: https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/16/apple-pay-and-ios-app-store-under-formal-antitrust-probe-in-europe/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/16/apple-pay-and-ios-app-stor... 1: https://theintercept.com/2017/03/28/after-12-rejections-apple-accepts-app-that-tracks-u-s-drone-strikes/ https://theintercept.com/2017/03/28/after-12-rejections-appl...
  - zaroth 6y ago
    It’s just one data point, but on the topic of IAP and revenue share, Spotify actually pays Apple 0.075% of its total revenue. It’s a 15% fee on 680,000 out of their 100,000,000 subscribers. The 30% fee drops to 15% after one year, and Spotify hasn’t accepted IAP in several years, so everyone paying for Spotify through Apple is paying the 15% rate. I do think larger clients should reasonably pay lower rates, as there’s a more equal/symbiotic value proposition between the two parties.
- donmcronald 6y ago
  You can still sideload or use an alternate store on Android. The experience isn't very good, but it's still an option. I think if the fees were split out people would lose their minds on more expensive apps because they'd recognize it isn't good value. Ex: Hey: $70 / year App Store Fee: $30 / year Also, did Hey get the prices wrong or are they talking about keeping the prices the same and eating the 30%? If they want $99 in their pocket, they need to charge ~43% more. Assuming Apple takes 30% of the sale price: - 99 * 1.43 = $141.57 - 141.57 * .3 = $42.47 for Apple - 141.57 * .7 = $99.10 for Hey So by taking 30% of revenue, it increases prices by 43% because if someone is taking 30% of your revenue, you need to increase your prices by 43% to break even.
bredren 6y ago
The press loves app developer David vs Goliath Apple stories. Our now-shuttered startup Gliph brought in-app Bitcoin transfers to the App Store for the first time in 2013. Apple allowed the behavior for seven months before I got a call telling me it had to be removed. Bitcoin was hot enough that our blog post generated a fair amount of press for our little startup. [1] and I also published the company's appeal publicly. However, I did so with great trepidation about angering someone at Apple. [2] Our approach did not seem to help things at all, though Apple did end up allowing the Bitcoin transfers to be brought back about 7 months later.[3] -- One thing I find notable about this site and Hey!'s behavior on this is the scorched earth approach to the response. Basecamp seems ready, to go to "thermonuclear war" (as Jobs would say) on this one. People are hearing about Hey alright. Hey's little mini site is convincing enough and it broadly escalates things. Particularly by using John Gruber's words against Apple, ouch! This situation opens an unnecessary and distracting attack surface for Apple, in advance the most important developer event possibly in a decade. Apple should have just let this app do its thing. This whole situation reminds me of how Apple tried to make Apple Store employees pay for the time they were getting their bags searched. Bad PR that should never have happened. [4] [1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/12/09/how-does-apple-really-feel-about-bitcoin/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/12/09/how-does-apple-really-feel... [2] https://19de10c0037730b31d67-c6cb9846d861a1213b31648a6cce64e1.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/Gliph%20-%20Apple%20AppStore%20Rejection%20Appeal%20Letter%20-%20Publish.pdf https://19de10c0037730b31d67-c6cb9846d861a1213b31648a6cce64e... [3] https://blog.gli.ph/2014/07/21/bitcoin-transfers-back-into-the-gliph-ios-application/ https://blog.gli.ph/2014/07/21/bitcoin-transfers-back-into-t... [4] https://9to5mac.com/2015/06/11/apple-store-security-checks/ https://9to5mac.com/2015/06/11/apple-store-security-checks/
- quitethelogic 6y ago
  > Hey's little mini site There's a github link at the bottom. Doesn't look to me like there is any affiliation with Basecamp. Edit: Your point still stands, however. DHH made it pretty clear when we said they'd burn it all down. (Don't remember the exact quote)
  - landric 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

zaroth 6y ago

Humans applying policy will be inconsistent. The alternative is Google where algorithms apply policy, and if they misapply a policy to you're simply screwed. I think the inverse to "Apple employed humans make a judgement call" is "Apple is no longer allowed to control their App Store". I don't like that option, because the curated App Store is a big reason why I bought an iPhone.

mikenew 6y ago
> Humans applying policy will be inconsistent. This is not my argument. It is not just inconsistent, it is selective. Major players are given far more leeway than small ones. There are obvious antitrust concerns, such as Spotify being required to give Apple 30% of it's revenue for it's service that competes with Apple Music[0]. There are concerns about freedom of speech and information, such as Apple removing an app that notified the user when there was a U.S. drone strike[1], or the Hong Kong protest app that China pressured them into removing. Or blocking all VPN apps in China. And even if the argument at the end of the day is "I don't care; I like having a curated app store", why does that imply that Apple should be able to force users into only using theirs? How do you lose anything if users are allowed to install apps from other places, in some cases where there are serious human rights issues at stake? 0: https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/16/apple-pay-and-ios-app-store-under-formal-antitrust-probe-in-europe/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/16/apple-pay-and-ios-app-stor... 1: https://theintercept.com/2017/03/28/after-12-rejections-apple-accepts-app-that-tracks-u-s-drone-strikes/ https://theintercept.com/2017/03/28/after-12-rejections-appl...
- zaroth 6y ago
  It’s just one data point, but on the topic of IAP and revenue share, Spotify actually pays Apple 0.075% of its total revenue. It’s a 15% fee on 680,000 out of their 100,000,000 subscribers. The 30% fee drops to 15% after one year, and Spotify hasn’t accepted IAP in several years, so everyone paying for Spotify through Apple is paying the 15% rate. I do think larger clients should reasonably pay lower rates, as there’s a more equal/symbiotic value proposition between the two parties.
donmcronald 6y ago
You can still sideload or use an alternate store on Android. The experience isn't very good, but it's still an option. I think if the fees were split out people would lose their minds on more expensive apps because they'd recognize it isn't good value. Ex: Hey: $70 / year App Store Fee: $30 / year Also, did Hey get the prices wrong or are they talking about keeping the prices the same and eating the 30%? If they want $99 in their pocket, they need to charge ~43% more. Assuming Apple takes 30% of the sale price: - 99 * 1.43 = $141.57 - 141.57 * .3 = $42.47 for Apple - 141.57 * .7 = $99.10 for Hey So by taking 30% of revenue, it increases prices by 43% because if someone is taking 30% of your revenue, you need to increase your prices by 43% to break even.

bredren 6y ago

The press loves app developer David vs Goliath Apple stories. Our now-shuttered startup Gliph brought in-app Bitcoin transfers to the App Store for the first time in 2013. Apple allowed the behavior for seven months before I got a call telling me it had to be removed. Bitcoin was hot enough that our blog post generated a fair amount of press for our little startup. [1] and I also published the company's appeal publicly. However, I did so with great trepidation about angering someone at Apple. [2] Our approach did not seem to help things at all, though Apple did end up allowing the Bitcoin transfers to be brought back about 7 months later.[3] -- One thing I find notable about this site and Hey!'s behavior on this is the scorched earth approach to the response. Basecamp seems ready, to go to "thermonuclear war" (as Jobs would say) on this one. People are hearing about Hey alright. Hey's little mini site is convincing enough and it broadly escalates things. Particularly by using John Gruber's words against Apple, ouch! This situation opens an unnecessary and distracting attack surface for Apple, in advance the most important developer event possibly in a decade. Apple should have just let this app do its thing. This whole situation reminds me of how Apple tried to make Apple Store employees pay for the time they were getting their bags searched. Bad PR that should never have happened. [4] [1] https://techcrunch.com/2013/12/09/how-does-apple-really-feel-about-bitcoin/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/12/09/how-does-apple-really-feel... [2] https://19de10c0037730b31d67-c6cb9846d861a1213b31648a6cce64e1.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/Gliph%20-%20Apple%20AppStore%20Rejection%20Appeal%20Letter%20-%20Publish.pdf https://19de10c0037730b31d67-c6cb9846d861a1213b31648a6cce64e... [3] https://blog.gli.ph/2014/07/21/bitcoin-transfers-back-into-the-gliph-ios-application/ https://blog.gli.ph/2014/07/21/bitcoin-transfers-back-into-t... [4] https://9to5mac.com/2015/06/11/apple-store-security-checks/ https://9to5mac.com/2015/06/11/apple-store-security-checks/

quitethelogic 6y ago
> Hey's little mini site There's a github link at the bottom. Doesn't look to me like there is any affiliation with Basecamp. Edit: Your point still stands, however. DHH made it pretty clear when we said they'd burn it all down. (Don't remember the exact quote)
- landric 6y ago