6 ms·

> What is worse, is that Apple doesn't remove the app from the user's device. This. Is. Ridiculous. We all know this is an intentional design decision by Appl

> What is worse, is that Apple doesn't remove the app from the user's device. This. Is. Ridiculous. We all know this is an intentional design decision by Apple and that they would absolutely not have designed the workflow this way if they had to dogfood their own platform.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nvahalik 6y ago
> if they had to dogfood their own platform. But Apple does sell one app through the iTunes App Store (Dark Sky, which they recently acquired). They sell several through the Mac App Store. So, they do dogfood, but obviously they are not depending on revenue to survive here. Side note: there are a bunch of apps listed under their developer that I had not seen before: Music Memos, Indoor Survey, Texas Hold'em, and Reality Composer.
- pier25 6y ago
  > So, they do dogfood, but obviously they are not depending on revenue to survive here. Their pro apps are almost given away for free. You could argue that $200 for Logic is not free, but similar DAW products costs 4-5 times more. Not only that, but competitors need to charge you for major updates every couple of years, like any developer. Since Apple released Logic Pro X in 2013 it has kept pushing updates without asking for money.
  - wlesieutre 6y ago
    There's also Apple's continued refusal to allow devleopers to have separate pricing for updates vs new purchases. It's either a free update to the existing app, or it's an entirely new app listing with the same price for new users and people who owned the previous one. I've seen this circumvented by creating a package deal of the old and new versions, which then gets discounted via the "you already own part of this set" mechanism, but it's a messy experience and not something that many developers have done.
  - dathinab 6y ago
    This apps also can use internal APIs without faring to be removed from the app store, they can also do UX practices which are not super compatible with the guid lines and they never need to fear an arbitrary ("accidental") review block/take down. So it's not at all feeding they own dogfood. Do do so Apple would need to run separate finances and make sure they don't get benefited in the review process.
chrisshroba 6y ago
Serious question: Is this refund problem as big an issue as commenters here are implying? Is there data that shows that app developers are losing significant money due to Apple's fees not being refunded? I would have guessed that very few people ever request a refund on an app they purchase, but I have no data to back this up.
- wlesieutre 6y ago
  Original link includes this tweet estimating about $8000 cost from Codea: https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288491970248077314/photo/1 https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288491970248077314/... Here's another example from Wil Shipley where someone purchased 30 education copies and then refunded all of them. Total for the day nets out to -18 purchases and sales of $-360: https://twitter.com/wilshipley/status/768540129203855360 https://twitter.com/wilshipley/status/768540129203855360 If you made say a high profile game that a particularly whiny subset of gamers took notice of, I imagine it could be much worse, but I don't know that this has happened yet. I'd bet money that it will though, and you have to wonder what Apple will do about it.
nomel 6y ago
> We all know this is an intentional design decision by Apple I see this as a good thing, since it probably means that only the user is capable of removing apps, requiring intent, and that Apple can never remove an app from my device.
- neymgm 6y ago
  I saw it the same way. I'd be a terrible idea to let Apple remove/install AppStore apps without the customer's permission. I don't know if it already does something similar but in the next OS update it could block the usage and force to delete refunded apps.
  - cma 6y ago
    Why couldn't the refund be conditional on granting removal permission? One issue would be they could still restore from a backup I suppose.
- dathinab 6y ago
  Apple is fully controlling your device, they can always do so if they want to even if they currently have no mechanism for it build-in. (Except if your phone never connects to the internet or a cell-phone at all ;=) ) Also apple could just require the user to remove the app before requesting refund or at least putting it in a partially removed state from which apple then can remove if. I.e. there is 0 benefit for any serious acting person. Only people who try to rip of app publishing companies profit from it.
- rzwitserloot 6y ago
  Leading to a _trivial_ solution. Want a refund? Awesome. Delete the software from your phone. Then, go to the appstore, find the app again, and click 'request refund'. If apple wants to improve the user experience, they can offer 'request refund' when someone uninstalls a recently bought app.
  - jkrems 6y ago
    That would still mean that Apple would need to have a remote way of scanning every device currently connected to your account (even it's offline..?) to see if you have the app installed anywhere. It's trivial if the app can only exist on a single device and that is the only device that can request the refund. But that's not the reality.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

nvahalik 6y ago

> if they had to dogfood their own platform. But Apple does sell one app through the iTunes App Store (Dark Sky, which they recently acquired). They sell several through the Mac App Store. So, they do dogfood, but obviously they are not depending on revenue to survive here. Side note: there are a bunch of apps listed under their developer that I had not seen before: Music Memos, Indoor Survey, Texas Hold'em, and Reality Composer.

pier25 6y ago
> So, they do dogfood, but obviously they are not depending on revenue to survive here. Their pro apps are almost given away for free. You could argue that $200 for Logic is not free, but similar DAW products costs 4-5 times more. Not only that, but competitors need to charge you for major updates every couple of years, like any developer. Since Apple released Logic Pro X in 2013 it has kept pushing updates without asking for money.
- wlesieutre 6y ago
  There's also Apple's continued refusal to allow devleopers to have separate pricing for updates vs new purchases. It's either a free update to the existing app, or it's an entirely new app listing with the same price for new users and people who owned the previous one. I've seen this circumvented by creating a package deal of the old and new versions, which then gets discounted via the "you already own part of this set" mechanism, but it's a messy experience and not something that many developers have done.
- dathinab 6y ago
  This apps also can use internal APIs without faring to be removed from the app store, they can also do UX practices which are not super compatible with the guid lines and they never need to fear an arbitrary ("accidental") review block/take down. So it's not at all feeding they own dogfood. Do do so Apple would need to run separate finances and make sure they don't get benefited in the review process.

chrisshroba 6y ago

Serious question: Is this refund problem as big an issue as commenters here are implying? Is there data that shows that app developers are losing significant money due to Apple's fees not being refunded? I would have guessed that very few people ever request a refund on an app they purchase, but I have no data to back this up.

wlesieutre 6y ago
Original link includes this tweet estimating about $8000 cost from Codea: https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288491970248077314/photo/1 https://twitter.com/twolivesleft/status/1288491970248077314/... Here's another example from Wil Shipley where someone purchased 30 education copies and then refunded all of them. Total for the day nets out to -18 purchases and sales of $-360: https://twitter.com/wilshipley/status/768540129203855360 https://twitter.com/wilshipley/status/768540129203855360 If you made say a high profile game that a particularly whiny subset of gamers took notice of, I imagine it could be much worse, but I don't know that this has happened yet. I'd bet money that it will though, and you have to wonder what Apple will do about it.

nomel 6y ago

> We all know this is an intentional design decision by Apple I see this as a good thing, since it probably means that only the user is capable of removing apps, requiring intent, and that Apple can never remove an app from my device.

neymgm 6y ago
I saw it the same way. I'd be a terrible idea to let Apple remove/install AppStore apps without the customer's permission. I don't know if it already does something similar but in the next OS update it could block the usage and force to delete refunded apps.
- cma 6y ago
  Why couldn't the refund be conditional on granting removal permission? One issue would be they could still restore from a backup I suppose.
dathinab 6y ago
Apple is fully controlling your device, they can always do so if they want to even if they currently have no mechanism for it build-in. (Except if your phone never connects to the internet or a cell-phone at all ;=) ) Also apple could just require the user to remove the app before requesting refund or at least putting it in a partially removed state from which apple then can remove if. I.e. there is 0 benefit for any serious acting person. Only people who try to rip of app publishing companies profit from it.
rzwitserloot 6y ago
Leading to a _trivial_ solution. Want a refund? Awesome. Delete the software from your phone. Then, go to the appstore, find the app again, and click 'request refund'. If apple wants to improve the user experience, they can offer 'request refund' when someone uninstalls a recently bought app.
- jkrems 6y ago
  That would still mean that Apple would need to have a remote way of scanning every device currently connected to your account (even it's offline..?) to see if you have the app installed anywhere. It's trivial if the app can only exist on a single device and that is the only device that can request the refund. But that's not the reality.