24 ms·

WordPressiOS Locked by App Store

438 points by constantinum 6y ago

mmastrac 6y ago
Tweet thread - it looks like Apple is requiring in-app purchases to sign-up for wordpress.com accounts, despite it being an open-source app for any WordPress site: > Heads up on why @WordPressiOS updates have been absent... we were locked by App Store. To be able to ship updates and bug fixes again we had to commit to support in-app purchases for .com plans. I know why this is problematic, open to suggestions. Allow others IAP? New name? > New name: The app has always done a ton of work to support WordPresses hosted anywhere, using the XML-RPC API included in core WP since WP 2.6 was released in 2008. That's why we called it "WordPress" and not "http://WordPress.com" http://WordPress.com" or "Jetpack." > I am a big believer in the sanctity of licenses. (Open source relies on licenses and copyright.) We agreed to this license when we signed up for (and stayed in) the app store, so going to follow and abide by the rules. Not looking to skirt it, hence doing what they asked us to. Alternate stories (though none are really that great): MacRumors article that gives a (very) small background on this: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/21/wordpress-ios-app-apple-blocked-updates/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/21/wordpress-ios-app-apple... The Verge, with slightly more context: https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/21/21396316/apple-wordpress-in-app-purchase-tax-update-store https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/21/21396316/apple-wordpress-... EDIT: Apple stated in the past that app updates would _not_ be held up over guideline disputes. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-reveals-new-developer-technologies-to-foster-the-next-generation-of-apps/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-reveals-new-dev... "Second, for apps that are already on the App Store, bug fixes will no longer be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal issues. Developers will instead be able to address the issue in their next submission. "
- giancarlostoro 6y ago
  This is really sad. On the one hand, sure Apple should be able to make a cut on their app store, on the other hand, they shouldn't be allowed to force apps to do this sort of thing. This will only drive domain prices higher on iOS in order to compensate (in the case of Automattic). If I were in a position where Apple is forcing me to pay a 30% tax, I would literally add "30% Apple Tax" to the check out screen on top of the regular fees to make consumers aware. Course I'm sure Apple wouldn't like this at all either.
  - iphone_elegance 6y ago
    Isn't that against their guidelines? the closet I've seen in a 'mobile' tier of pricing that has to apply to android as well but that's only possible with some usecases
  - dylan-m 6y ago
    > On the one hand, sure Apple should be able to make a cut on their app store Apple makes a cut: they charge developers a not insignificant yearly fee of 99 USD per seat, they sell iOS devices and services at great profit, they happily earn 15-30% from in-app purchases and subscriptions wherever developers choose to use those features, they earn 30% on any apps that choose to be paid, and they reserve the right to set a minimum price if free apps inconvenience them. (But free apps very much do not inconvenience them, ever, and this idea that they do and Apple of all companies is doing all this from the goodness of their hearts is a disease). The only reason Apple needs more of a cut here is because their shareholders would probably sue them if they stopped.
    - djxfade 6y ago
      The 99 USD fee is not per seat
      - wwright 6y ago
        Even if it was, that’s definitely not significant. Each engineer is probably paid more per day than that. (I’m not a fan of the flat 30% charge, but developer program fees are not a challenge for any group with a revenue stream if any kind.)
        dylan-m 6y ago
        Yeah, I meant per developer. Wires crossed. But it certainly doesn't matter what each engineer is paid. Apple has 20 million registered developers. [Edit: And let's say a third of them pay that fee, which is admittedly probably a stretch. The finer details are not my point here other than to say here's a bunch of money that comes in no matter what] I don't care what those developers are making: that's serious income right there. If Apple think they are entitled to more, that's their problem, but don't act like they're making any kind of sacrifice here, and for fuck's sake people need to stop trying to convince themselves that Apple are their friends.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- fpordeig 6y ago
  Idea: run ads telling ios users that buying in-app is much more expensive than buying in the website. Tell users that apple is scamming them with in app purchases. If this becomes vox populi, it will be a pr nightmare for apple. We would need some kind of consumer's association or foundation to run it in order to protect funders identities.
Hamuko 6y ago
It's quite amazing how hard Apple is pushing this now with all of the extra regulatory eyes on the subject. I guess they're fairly confident that they're untouchable.
- bilal4hmed 6y ago
  They are betting on the fact that arent a majority in any space. Its the best situation for them, then dont have majority market share but make the most revenue. They see Google being split up and therefore being the only game in town.
  - wmf 6y ago
    I didn't notice when this happened, but apparently iPhone now has over 50% of the US phone market.
    - bilal4hmed 6y ago
      interesting neither did I. Globally its still 25% however.
      - nrmitchi 6y ago
        But for the purposes of US antitrust and anti-competetive concerns, why does "global" matter?
        anticensor 6y ago
        Humans are humans, anti-competitive behaviour spreads quickly from country to country. If you get too late preparing for the legal action, the anti-competitive behaviour may well spread without competition enforcement noticing.
      - 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
        IPhone is expensive, who can spend 1000 euro on a damn phone? Not many even here in Europe. Americans have tons of disposable money, see wealthier and in general like ti consume.
turblety 6y ago
I know I really don't matter to Apple, but this walled garden and app store dictatorship is what finally made me move away from iOS to Android last year. I had used Android in the past, but it was with Samsung Galaxy's which where very bloated and awful when compared to Apple. But when a friend told me that Samsung just ruin Android [1] and I should try an actual Google phone, I bought a Pixel and it's honestly great. I can install apps I build myself very easily without Google's input at all, although I don't even need to build apps since their PWA's can do almost anything I'd want. I highly recommend people who are sick of this Apple crap, to try a Google Pixel. I haven't even needed to sign up for a Google account since using it (although I have to use an alternative app store). I've already moved three family members over and after a few days they basically don't notice a different. Between moving to my Pixel and a Purism laptop I'm pretty much free from Apple, apart from my work laptop, which isn't my choice. 1. Disclaimer! I am very privacy, open-source, freedom orientated so if you don't mind a bunch of binary blobs that track you maybe Samsung would work for you.
- fermienrico 6y ago
  Unpopular opinion that I hold: The walled garden is exactly why I love Apple's iPhone. iPhone keeps the rifraff away, third-party sniffers at check, they've recently added clipboard notification if some app tries to paste random stuff from my clipboard (given that we use it so much for 1Password and other password managers). I absolutely do not trust any third party - there are some insane apps like LinkedIn that tries to sell your privacy at every corner. That said, Apple should allow Jailbreaking to aficionados who want to mess around with it. But, there should be significant impedance to that - your average joe working as a bartender doesn't have a clue of how to keep his iPhone secure. Apple should make it explicitly clear - hey! ALL BETS ARE OFF WHEN YOU JAILBREAK OUR DEVICE. CLICK AGREE.
  - fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
    Me too, I've chosen Apple devices, mostly because I like Apple's Continuity features and their walled-garden mindset. In particular, I really wish Apple would push Apple Pay and Sign-In with Apple more: I already trust Apple with all sorts of private data (Face ID, iCloud Keychain, etc.), I don't want to also have to evaluate PayPal/Google/FB/whoever as an alternative sign-in or payment vendor.
swiley 6y ago
Does apple want legal action against themselves? This is just stupid. The conspiracy theorist in me says maybe they’re trying to make the discussion about about payments and not anticompetitive behavior or the attack on FOSS.
kodah 6y ago
I've been thinking lately that Open Source, much less FOSS, needs to separate itself from corporate entities entirely. I've seen FOSS/OS communities use proprietary technologies like Slack over Mattermost or IRC, GitHub over GitLab or Gitea, and even as deep as prioritizing native apps over PWA architecture that could've achieved the same things. I doubt Apple's ignorance over the economics of the matter or how it relates to community relations will become apparent to them, but I think this is a beacon in the night to developers everywhere. Money driven companies will never be more than a tool, much less your friends.
- saurik 6y ago
  Over and over again this is once again made obvious to everyone as some large company abuses their monopoly or shuts down their website, and the people who have been saying adamantly for decades that this had never been OK to begin with sit back and know "y'all still aren't going to stop" :/.
- stephenr 6y ago
  Using open source tooling? Yes that makes sense and should carry some weight for an open source project. Abandoning real client apps and instead telling everyone to use a webpage has nothing to do with software licensing.
floatingatoll 6y ago
They're lucky that Apple hasn't yet realized their app is GPLv2. They're going to end up purged from the app store altogether unless they relicense their codebase, no matter what they end up deciding to do with IAP.
- YetAnotherNick 6y ago
  What's the problem with GPLv2 licensed app?
  - detaro 6y ago
    Short version of the usual argument: GPL says you can't add restrictions on what a user can do when you distribute an app. App Store terms of service do add restrictions, so distributing an GPL app through the app store is a license violation.
    - duskwuff 6y ago
      But in this case it doesn't matter, because Automattic is the owner of the application, not a licensee -- they can relicense the application if they want, and they're implicitly doing so here. It does make the source code effectively unusable by anyone downstream, though.
      - floatingatoll 6y ago
        Do they own GPLv2-licensed commits to their codebase introduced by accepting pull requests from contributors?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - detaro 6y ago
        They don't ask for CLAs as far as I know, so they don't if they take any contributions.
    - 6y ago
kmeisthax 6y ago
Apple seems to be trying to make it as difficult as possible to distribute an iOS app that doesn't result in money moving into Apple's pocket, even when it makes absolutely no sense to enable that... unless you're Amazon, in which case your otherwise unauthorizedly thin margins are suddenly perfectly acceptable.
greatgib 6y ago
Here, I think that we can clap for all the "Apple products" fanboys that have led us to this new world where a lot of people are thinking that it is normal that 2 companies have the arbitrary and dictatorial right to decide what is allowed to run on an user device just because they sold it... Imagine, a car manufacturer that would remotely block cars for using highways that they don't like or have not paid the "tribute" to them. Or, the gouvernement of one of the few remaining real democracies that will arbitrary dictate everything that you can or cannot do, based on arbitrary decisions depending of their personal preferences or financial interests.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
jasonhansel 6y ago
Can they (and other developers) join Epic's lawsuit? It would presumably be good for the industry if several players worked together to formulate the legal case against Apple's policies.
rewq4321 6y ago
From the replies (@mysl_co): > Hey Matt, When I open the Help Center from the app, I can get guidance about upgrading to one of your paid plans. If I tap on “Plans” as seen the screenshot, the app opens Safari and shows the plans. This is a violation according to App Store Review Guidelines. > Here is the relevant term that your app violated: 3.1.3(a) Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions […] provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase This is amazing to me. They're essentially taxing hyperlinks in your app? The "directly or indirectly target iOS users" wording seems like it would even cover a mere textual mention of a paid product in the app. The read anti-trust magnifying glass should be on Apple's lack of support for the PWA-related standards. Google's FUGU program is closing the gap quite fast, and Apple (thanks to their ban on other browser engines) knows they can hold back the tide by dragging their feet on development of the standards. Their strategy is so anti-competitive, and so out in the open that I can't see how they've been allowed to get away with it for so long.
- robotnixon 6y ago
  My company had our apps flagged because our links to support documentation included our logo, which took you to our homepage, where you could presumably find contact information for our sales department and contact us to purchase. At the time we didn't even have the ability purchase online as our app was only a portal to the enterprise product we were selling which had custom pricing. We ended up removing the support link and just prompted them to email support.
  - RonanTheGrey 6y ago
    > We ended up removing the support link and just prompted them to email support. This is of course MUCH better for consumers, obviously. /s I don't normally leave this type of comment but honestly Apple's outright aggression towards consumers is right out in the open. They're demonstrating second by second the reason that market-makers cannot dominate.
  - dariosalvi78 6y ago
    But then people could ask support to buy your services!
Razengan 6y ago
What should be the price of accessing a billion users? Does any platform allow anyone to charge its users without going through the platform? Nevermind charging, does -any- platform allow anyone to interact with its users at all without adhering to the platform's terms and conditions? Can we post anything we want on HN? How about spamming Patreon or GoFundMe links on forums and servers? Why not?
- aikah 6y ago
  > Can we post anything we want on HN? How about spamming Patreon or GoFundMe links on forums and servers? Why not? You are free to put a gofundme link on your profile page on HN. People who make interesting, thought provoking, constructive comments and avoid sophistic arguments and strawmen certainly have their profile page checked by other users who want to follow the commenter on other plateforms.
- TakawaraJu 6y ago
  > What should be the price of accessing a billion users? The $99 developers licence seems like a pretty fair price for access.
- hirako2000 6y ago
  The price should be zero. Then platform can offer a service e.g payment gateway at a price but not prevent other payment gateways. Google search and other search engin do allow. They are platforms, not purely marketplace, so what. The problem is not whether it is legitimate for a platform to enforce terms and conditions, the problem is what are those terms and conditions. A physical market place can and probably should have some terms and conditions, such as rules around how to not dispose of trash and sanitary, but a term that force participants to purchase a cleaning service only from the marketplace manager is where it would be crossing a line. That is what is being criticized here. Not the existence of terms and conditions to use the app store, it is the restriction to use any other payment gateway, the restriction from communicating that there is an apple tax of 30% and offer an alternative route to the end customer. Apple has the right to monetise its platform of course, but with a fair business model, not an abusive business model.
eblanshey 6y ago
I know it won't happen but I wish that all major companies on the Apple store would collaborate and all at once either release in-house in-app purchases or link to their websites to instruct users to buy stuff. Apple can't remove every app from the app-store as the ensuing shitstorm would have people ditching Apple in waves.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- baldajan 6y ago
  Epic is trying to get this done. But the companies are afraid that could trigger anti-trust cases against them. It’s complicated - but they’re watching and I believe big tech has grown tired of Apple’s power.
naveen99 6y ago
I wonder if corporations would be more efficient long term if each layer in the hierarchy simply collected 30% tax from the layer below like capitalism, instead of being run like a dictatorship / communism that they currently run as... I mean if 30% ownership of everything via taxes is good for capitalist governments, maybe it’s good for corporations also ?
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  So the Apple store 30% tax would be more like a 30% VAT on the value created by the app - excluding the value already present in prewritten libraries etc the app builds on. The problem there is that it's impossible to quantify that. VAT works in-practice in retail sales because the value added is trivial to calculate - but you can't do that with open-source libraries or internal components - or the value created by a platform (e.g. what value does Spotify add on-top of the existing iOS audio and internet capabilities that they're using?)
  - naveen99 6y ago
    think franchising (or commission based sales or performance based bonuses) taken to an extreme. I understand there are inefficiencies in implementing. And you may lose the govt. tax free intra organization transactions. Just a not really serious thought.
judge2020 6y ago
Sounds like Apple's doubling down on their lawsuit stance. If they win, they can broadly charge their 30% rent on all digital purchases, maybe even physical ones in the future.
rangoon626 6y ago
Mobile apps were a mistake. Steve Jobs had it right the first time with his “very sweet solution.” It was a good 12 year run, but 2020 is the year mobile apps stopped being cool.
threesmegiste 6y ago
Dear Apple, your project of making people hate you JUST WORKS
- Razengan 6y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24210991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24210991
danShumway 6y ago
I've commented this elsewhere, but Apple encouraging users to only upgrade and purchase subscriptions through Apple's payment systems and hiding in-app alternatives and links to other options isn't just about the 30% fee. It also increases consumer lock-in to the Apple ecosystem. If the only thing you're using your phone for is calling, browsing, and buying apps, it's not that hard to switch to Android. You lose all of your apps, and that stinks a lot, but if most of your apps are free you might tolerate that. And outside of the apps, you can keep your phone number, export your contacts, etc... But if suddenly all of your phone subscriptions including newspapers, music services like Spotify, hosts like Wordpress, email services like Hey, and so on -- if all of those are only managed through your phone and can't be canceled or upgraded by the companies themselves then that's another big annoyance to deal with that might keep you from switching just because you want an Android app that isn't available for your phone. Apple tries very hard to lock users into its ecosystem. That's why there's a credit card now that only works with Apple phones; it's to make sure that if you ever change phones, you now have to deal with canceling a credit card. That's why companies aren't allowed to build their own interoppable solutions around iMessage. It's to make sure that if you change phones, you get social stigma from your friends and have a worse SMS experience with them. The payments rules are another part of that. Yes, of course Apple wants the 30%, but they also want literally everything you do on your phone to be tied to them. If Apple could create a world where you lost your phone number when you switched phones, they'd do it in a heartbeat. They want their walled garden to have a one-way door.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- rewq4321 6y ago
  Very well said. > If Apple could create a world where you lost your phone number when you switched phones, they'd do it in a heartbeat. Face time is a start? They've dragged their feet on WebRTC implementation and spec compliance for a long time.
- 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nurettin 6y ago
might be false/local info, so redacted
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  This is straight up false, at least in my jurisdiction. When I buy apps or in app purchases I get charged a separate 13% HST (Ontario sales tax) on top of the listed price.
  - nurettin 6y ago
    What is false?
    - ac29 6y ago
      The 30% apple fee does not cover taxes/VAT. Those costs are added on top.
      - nurettin 6y ago
        So we have this equation for what the customer sees: dev price + apple comm. + VAT
        anticensor 6y ago
        Did you mean: dev price + apple VAT + real VAT
        nurettin 6y ago
        no, I mean whatever apple takes as commission, plus whatever apple thinks the regional VAT/cost is.
rofws 6y ago
This is a worrying development for my company. We have B2B products (that can be used from the web and mobile) that customers pay for per account, in bulk. I hope they don't start to apply the 30% cut there - our customers would find it impossible to pay 30% more for every user who uses an iPhone. We would have no choice but to stop having an iPhone app in that case.
Causality1 6y ago
The mobile device role is such a weird and mutated one. Closed systems like game consoles only run software the vendor approves and buyers go into it knowing it's a specialized device. Real computers can run any software the user wants and buyers fully expect their PCs to be as powerful and flexible as possible. Mobile devices occupy a weird middle ground where vendors try to give the impression they can do anything a PC can while simultaneously holding an iron grip around the entire software ecosystem.
heisenbit 6y ago
I don‘t believe being more perfect in license enforcement is going to save Apple in their anti-trust struggles but I can believe some lawyers may believe that.
marmada 6y ago
It feels like there's a tragedy of the commons situation here -- imagine if Amazon, Spotify, Google, and others unilaterally decided to block Apple. This would surely result in Apple folding
- Razengan 6y ago
  As if Amazon and Google are saints. Even if they colluded to "block" Apple (which would be illegal), millions of people would still continue using Apple.
  - theontheone 6y ago
    It's not illegal or collusion to remove their apps and products from Apple phones. I disagree with you - if you couldn't use instagram / fb messenger(s) / tiktok / YouTube, wayyyy less people would buy Apple. https://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-engine/ https://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-en... However, it doesn't look like this is happening anytime soon.
    - Razengan 6y ago
      Users could still always use the websites, which is what I do for those apps, especially after all the recent news about iOS 14 catching apps like Instagram and others secretly snooping your camera and clipboard etc.
anupamchugh 6y ago
Wordpress iOS app isn't used for buying domains. It's simply helps manage your website. Apple is going crazy and in a rush to reach the next trillion landmark.
non-entity 6y ago
> using the XML-RPC API included in core WP since WP 2.6 was released in 2008. Wow this is the first time I think I've heard of a real use of XML-RPC
stingraycharles 6y ago
Ok correct me if I’m wrong, but the rationale is pretty much that since there is a commercial version of Wordpress that this app interacts with, the user should be able to purchase this through Apple’s payment gateway? If this is correct, wouldn’t the same logic apply to other tools, such as JIRA and Trello and whatnot? Or am I mistaken?
throWaythxMod 6y ago
Why not use the website instead of an App? Other people said Safari is bad, but you aren't trying to play flash games, you are looking at JavaScript at most. (Not that I'd ever give Apple money, but trying to find solutions to those who made the mistake)
scarface74 6y ago
From the authors tweet “I am a big believer in the sanctity of licenses. (Open source relies on licenses and copyright.) We agreed to this license when we signed up for (and stayed in) the app store, so going to follow and abide by the rules. Not looking to skirt it, hence doing what they asked us to.” I wonder if someone had made that same argument here who wasn’t the author, would he get downvoted to oblivion?
tawayfree 6y ago
Mobile team seems doing poor job for the big picture of the apps at Automattic. Ex: Simplenote becomes famous of loss data. Matt should focus on hiring experienced engineers then interview and slack hackers with emojis. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.automattic.simplenote&hl=en&showAllReviews=true https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.automattic...
kdtsh 6y ago
This is all really making me rethink any future purchases of an iPhone. I don’t want to be anywhere near this.

438 points by constantinum 6y ago

Tweet thread - it looks like Apple is requiring in-app purchases to sign-up for wordpress.com accounts, despite it being an open-source app for any WordPress site: > Heads up on why @WordPressiOS updates have been absent... we were locked by App Store. To be able to ship updates and bug fixes again we had to commit to support in-app purchases for .com plans. I know why this is problematic, open to suggestions. Allow others IAP? New name? > New name: The app has always done a ton of work to support WordPresses hosted anywhere, using the XML-RPC API included in core WP since WP 2.6 was released in 2008. That's why we called it "WordPress" and not "http://WordPress.com" http://WordPress.com" or "Jetpack." > I am a big believer in the sanctity of licenses. (Open source relies on licenses and copyright.) We agreed to this license when we signed up for (and stayed in) the app store, so going to follow and abide by the rules. Not looking to skirt it, hence doing what they asked us to. Alternate stories (though none are really that great): MacRumors article that gives a (very) small background on this: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/21/wordpress-ios-app-apple-blocked-updates/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/08/21/wordpress-ios-app-apple... The Verge, with slightly more context: https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/21/21396316/apple-wordpress-in-app-purchase-tax-update-store https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/21/21396316/apple-wordpress-... EDIT: Apple stated in the past that app updates would _not_ be held up over guideline disputes. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-reveals-new-developer-technologies-to-foster-the-next-generation-of-apps/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/06/apple-reveals-new-dev... "Second, for apps that are already on the App Store, bug fixes will no longer be delayed over guideline violations except for those related to legal issues. Developers will instead be able to address the issue in their next submission. "

giancarlostoro 6y ago
This is really sad. On the one hand, sure Apple should be able to make a cut on their app store, on the other hand, they shouldn't be allowed to force apps to do this sort of thing. This will only drive domain prices higher on iOS in order to compensate (in the case of Automattic). If I were in a position where Apple is forcing me to pay a 30% tax, I would literally add "30% Apple Tax" to the check out screen on top of the regular fees to make consumers aware. Course I'm sure Apple wouldn't like this at all either.
- iphone_elegance 6y ago
  Isn't that against their guidelines? the closet I've seen in a 'mobile' tier of pricing that has to apply to android as well but that's only possible with some usecases
- dylan-m 6y ago
  > On the one hand, sure Apple should be able to make a cut on their app store Apple makes a cut: they charge developers a not insignificant yearly fee of 99 USD per seat, they sell iOS devices and services at great profit, they happily earn 15-30% from in-app purchases and subscriptions wherever developers choose to use those features, they earn 30% on any apps that choose to be paid, and they reserve the right to set a minimum price if free apps inconvenience them. (But free apps very much do not inconvenience them, ever, and this idea that they do and Apple of all companies is doing all this from the goodness of their hearts is a disease). The only reason Apple needs more of a cut here is because their shareholders would probably sue them if they stopped.
  - djxfade 6y ago
    The 99 USD fee is not per seat
    - wwright 6y ago
      Even if it was, that’s definitely not significant. Each engineer is probably paid more per day than that. (I’m not a fan of the flat 30% charge, but developer program fees are not a challenge for any group with a revenue stream if any kind.)
      - dylan-m 6y ago
        Yeah, I meant per developer. Wires crossed. But it certainly doesn't matter what each engineer is paid. Apple has 20 million registered developers. [Edit: And let's say a third of them pay that fee, which is admittedly probably a stretch. The finer details are not my point here other than to say here's a bunch of money that comes in no matter what] I don't care what those developers are making: that's serious income right there. If Apple think they are entitled to more, that's their problem, but don't act like they're making any kind of sacrifice here, and for fuck's sake people need to stop trying to convince themselves that Apple are their friends.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
fpordeig 6y ago
Idea: run ads telling ios users that buying in-app is much more expensive than buying in the website. Tell users that apple is scamming them with in app purchases. If this becomes vox populi, it will be a pr nightmare for apple. We would need some kind of consumer's association or foundation to run it in order to protect funders identities.

Hamuko 6y ago

It's quite amazing how hard Apple is pushing this now with all of the extra regulatory eyes on the subject. I guess they're fairly confident that they're untouchable.

bilal4hmed 6y ago
They are betting on the fact that arent a majority in any space. Its the best situation for them, then dont have majority market share but make the most revenue. They see Google being split up and therefore being the only game in town.
- wmf 6y ago
  I didn't notice when this happened, but apparently iPhone now has over 50% of the US phone market.
  - bilal4hmed 6y ago
    interesting neither did I. Globally its still 25% however.
    - nrmitchi 6y ago
      But for the purposes of US antitrust and anti-competetive concerns, why does "global" matter?
      - anticensor 6y ago
        Humans are humans, anti-competitive behaviour spreads quickly from country to country. If you get too late preparing for the legal action, the anti-competitive behaviour may well spread without competition enforcement noticing.
    - 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
      IPhone is expensive, who can spend 1000 euro on a damn phone? Not many even here in Europe. Americans have tons of disposable money, see wealthier and in general like ti consume.

turblety 6y ago

I know I really don't matter to Apple, but this walled garden and app store dictatorship is what finally made me move away from iOS to Android last year. I had used Android in the past, but it was with Samsung Galaxy's which where very bloated and awful when compared to Apple. But when a friend told me that Samsung just ruin Android [1] and I should try an actual Google phone, I bought a Pixel and it's honestly great. I can install apps I build myself very easily without Google's input at all, although I don't even need to build apps since their PWA's can do almost anything I'd want. I highly recommend people who are sick of this Apple crap, to try a Google Pixel. I haven't even needed to sign up for a Google account since using it (although I have to use an alternative app store). I've already moved three family members over and after a few days they basically don't notice a different. Between moving to my Pixel and a Purism laptop I'm pretty much free from Apple, apart from my work laptop, which isn't my choice. 1. Disclaimer! I am very privacy, open-source, freedom orientated so if you don't mind a bunch of binary blobs that track you maybe Samsung would work for you.

fermienrico 6y ago
Unpopular opinion that I hold: The walled garden is exactly why I love Apple's iPhone. iPhone keeps the rifraff away, third-party sniffers at check, they've recently added clipboard notification if some app tries to paste random stuff from my clipboard (given that we use it so much for 1Password and other password managers). I absolutely do not trust any third party - there are some insane apps like LinkedIn that tries to sell your privacy at every corner. That said, Apple should allow Jailbreaking to aficionados who want to mess around with it. But, there should be significant impedance to that - your average joe working as a bartender doesn't have a clue of how to keep his iPhone secure. Apple should make it explicitly clear - hey! ALL BETS ARE OFF WHEN YOU JAILBREAK OUR DEVICE. CLICK AGREE.
- fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
  Me too, I've chosen Apple devices, mostly because I like Apple's Continuity features and their walled-garden mindset. In particular, I really wish Apple would push Apple Pay and Sign-In with Apple more: I already trust Apple with all sorts of private data (Face ID, iCloud Keychain, etc.), I don't want to also have to evaluate PayPal/Google/FB/whoever as an alternative sign-in or payment vendor.

swiley 6y ago

Does apple want legal action against themselves? This is just stupid. The conspiracy theorist in me says maybe they’re trying to make the discussion about about payments and not anticompetitive behavior or the attack on FOSS.

kodah 6y ago

I've been thinking lately that Open Source, much less FOSS, needs to separate itself from corporate entities entirely. I've seen FOSS/OS communities use proprietary technologies like Slack over Mattermost or IRC, GitHub over GitLab or Gitea, and even as deep as prioritizing native apps over PWA architecture that could've achieved the same things. I doubt Apple's ignorance over the economics of the matter or how it relates to community relations will become apparent to them, but I think this is a beacon in the night to developers everywhere. Money driven companies will never be more than a tool, much less your friends.

saurik 6y ago
Over and over again this is once again made obvious to everyone as some large company abuses their monopoly or shuts down their website, and the people who have been saying adamantly for decades that this had never been OK to begin with sit back and know "y'all still aren't going to stop" :/.
stephenr 6y ago
Using open source tooling? Yes that makes sense and should carry some weight for an open source project. Abandoning real client apps and instead telling everyone to use a webpage has nothing to do with software licensing.

floatingatoll 6y ago

They're lucky that Apple hasn't yet realized their app is GPLv2. They're going to end up purged from the app store altogether unless they relicense their codebase, no matter what they end up deciding to do with IAP.

YetAnotherNick 6y ago
What's the problem with GPLv2 licensed app?
- detaro 6y ago
  Short version of the usual argument: GPL says you can't add restrictions on what a user can do when you distribute an app. App Store terms of service do add restrictions, so distributing an GPL app through the app store is a license violation.
  - duskwuff 6y ago
    But in this case it doesn't matter, because Automattic is the owner of the application, not a licensee -- they can relicense the application if they want, and they're implicitly doing so here. It does make the source code effectively unusable by anyone downstream, though.
    - floatingatoll 6y ago
      Do they own GPLv2-licensed commits to their codebase introduced by accepting pull requests from contributors?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - detaro 6y ago
      They don't ask for CLAs as far as I know, so they don't if they take any contributions.
  - 6y ago

kmeisthax 6y ago

Apple seems to be trying to make it as difficult as possible to distribute an iOS app that doesn't result in money moving into Apple's pocket, even when it makes absolutely no sense to enable that... unless you're Amazon, in which case your otherwise unauthorizedly thin margins are suddenly perfectly acceptable.

greatgib 6y ago

Here, I think that we can clap for all the "Apple products" fanboys that have led us to this new world where a lot of people are thinking that it is normal that 2 companies have the arbitrary and dictatorial right to decide what is allowed to run on an user device just because they sold it... Imagine, a car manufacturer that would remotely block cars for using highways that they don't like or have not paid the "tribute" to them. Or, the gouvernement of one of the few remaining real democracies that will arbitrary dictate everything that you can or cannot do, based on arbitrary decisions depending of their personal preferences or financial interests.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jasonhansel 6y ago

Can they (and other developers) join Epic's lawsuit? It would presumably be good for the industry if several players worked together to formulate the legal case against Apple's policies.

rewq4321 6y ago

From the replies (@mysl_co): > Hey Matt, When I open the Help Center from the app, I can get guidance about upgrading to one of your paid plans. If I tap on “Plans” as seen the screenshot, the app opens Safari and shows the plans. This is a violation according to App Store Review Guidelines. > Here is the relevant term that your app violated: 3.1.3(a) Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions […] provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase This is amazing to me. They're essentially taxing hyperlinks in your app? The "directly or indirectly target iOS users" wording seems like it would even cover a mere textual mention of a paid product in the app. The read anti-trust magnifying glass should be on Apple's lack of support for the PWA-related standards. Google's FUGU program is closing the gap quite fast, and Apple (thanks to their ban on other browser engines) knows they can hold back the tide by dragging their feet on development of the standards. Their strategy is so anti-competitive, and so out in the open that I can't see how they've been allowed to get away with it for so long.

robotnixon 6y ago
My company had our apps flagged because our links to support documentation included our logo, which took you to our homepage, where you could presumably find contact information for our sales department and contact us to purchase. At the time we didn't even have the ability purchase online as our app was only a portal to the enterprise product we were selling which had custom pricing. We ended up removing the support link and just prompted them to email support.
- RonanTheGrey 6y ago
  > We ended up removing the support link and just prompted them to email support. This is of course MUCH better for consumers, obviously. /s I don't normally leave this type of comment but honestly Apple's outright aggression towards consumers is right out in the open. They're demonstrating second by second the reason that market-makers cannot dominate.
- dariosalvi78 6y ago
  But then people could ask support to buy your services!

Razengan 6y ago

What should be the price of accessing a billion users? Does any platform allow anyone to charge its users without going through the platform? Nevermind charging, does -any- platform allow anyone to interact with its users at all without adhering to the platform's terms and conditions? Can we post anything we want on HN? How about spamming Patreon or GoFundMe links on forums and servers? Why not?

aikah 6y ago
> Can we post anything we want on HN? How about spamming Patreon or GoFundMe links on forums and servers? Why not? You are free to put a gofundme link on your profile page on HN. People who make interesting, thought provoking, constructive comments and avoid sophistic arguments and strawmen certainly have their profile page checked by other users who want to follow the commenter on other plateforms.
TakawaraJu 6y ago
> What should be the price of accessing a billion users? The $99 developers licence seems like a pretty fair price for access.
hirako2000 6y ago
The price should be zero. Then platform can offer a service e.g payment gateway at a price but not prevent other payment gateways. Google search and other search engin do allow. They are platforms, not purely marketplace, so what. The problem is not whether it is legitimate for a platform to enforce terms and conditions, the problem is what are those terms and conditions. A physical market place can and probably should have some terms and conditions, such as rules around how to not dispose of trash and sanitary, but a term that force participants to purchase a cleaning service only from the marketplace manager is where it would be crossing a line. That is what is being criticized here. Not the existence of terms and conditions to use the app store, it is the restriction to use any other payment gateway, the restriction from communicating that there is an apple tax of 30% and offer an alternative route to the end customer. Apple has the right to monetise its platform of course, but with a fair business model, not an abusive business model.

eblanshey 6y ago

I know it won't happen but I wish that all major companies on the Apple store would collaborate and all at once either release in-house in-app purchases or link to their websites to instruct users to buy stuff. Apple can't remove every app from the app-store as the ensuing shitstorm would have people ditching Apple in waves.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
baldajan 6y ago
Epic is trying to get this done. But the companies are afraid that could trigger anti-trust cases against them. It’s complicated - but they’re watching and I believe big tech has grown tired of Apple’s power.

naveen99 6y ago

I wonder if corporations would be more efficient long term if each layer in the hierarchy simply collected 30% tax from the layer below like capitalism, instead of being run like a dictatorship / communism that they currently run as... I mean if 30% ownership of everything via taxes is good for capitalist governments, maybe it’s good for corporations also ?

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
So the Apple store 30% tax would be more like a 30% VAT on the value created by the app - excluding the value already present in prewritten libraries etc the app builds on. The problem there is that it's impossible to quantify that. VAT works in-practice in retail sales because the value added is trivial to calculate - but you can't do that with open-source libraries or internal components - or the value created by a platform (e.g. what value does Spotify add on-top of the existing iOS audio and internet capabilities that they're using?)
- naveen99 6y ago
  think franchising (or commission based sales or performance based bonuses) taken to an extreme. I understand there are inefficiencies in implementing. And you may lose the govt. tax free intra organization transactions. Just a not really serious thought.

judge2020 6y ago

Sounds like Apple's doubling down on their lawsuit stance. If they win, they can broadly charge their 30% rent on all digital purchases, maybe even physical ones in the future.

rangoon626 6y ago

Mobile apps were a mistake. Steve Jobs had it right the first time with his “very sweet solution.” It was a good 12 year run, but 2020 is the year mobile apps stopped being cool.

threesmegiste 6y ago

Dear Apple, your project of making people hate you JUST WORKS

Razengan 6y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24210991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24210991

danShumway 6y ago

I've commented this elsewhere, but Apple encouraging users to only upgrade and purchase subscriptions through Apple's payment systems and hiding in-app alternatives and links to other options isn't just about the 30% fee. It also increases consumer lock-in to the Apple ecosystem. If the only thing you're using your phone for is calling, browsing, and buying apps, it's not that hard to switch to Android. You lose all of your apps, and that stinks a lot, but if most of your apps are free you might tolerate that. And outside of the apps, you can keep your phone number, export your contacts, etc... But if suddenly all of your phone subscriptions including newspapers, music services like Spotify, hosts like Wordpress, email services like Hey, and so on -- if all of those are only managed through your phone and can't be canceled or upgraded by the companies themselves then that's another big annoyance to deal with that might keep you from switching just because you want an Android app that isn't available for your phone. Apple tries very hard to lock users into its ecosystem. That's why there's a credit card now that only works with Apple phones; it's to make sure that if you ever change phones, you now have to deal with canceling a credit card. That's why companies aren't allowed to build their own interoppable solutions around iMessage. It's to make sure that if you change phones, you get social stigma from your friends and have a worse SMS experience with them. The payments rules are another part of that. Yes, of course Apple wants the 30%, but they also want literally everything you do on your phone to be tied to them. If Apple could create a world where you lost your phone number when you switched phones, they'd do it in a heartbeat. They want their walled garden to have a one-way door.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rewq4321 6y ago
Very well said. > If Apple could create a world where you lost your phone number when you switched phones, they'd do it in a heartbeat. Face time is a start? They've dragged their feet on WebRTC implementation and spec compliance for a long time.
6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

nurettin 6y ago

might be false/local info, so redacted

AlexandrB 6y ago
This is straight up false, at least in my jurisdiction. When I buy apps or in app purchases I get charged a separate 13% HST (Ontario sales tax) on top of the listed price.
- nurettin 6y ago
  What is false?
  - ac29 6y ago
    The 30% apple fee does not cover taxes/VAT. Those costs are added on top.
    - nurettin 6y ago
      So we have this equation for what the customer sees: dev price + apple comm. + VAT
      - anticensor 6y ago
        Did you mean: dev price + apple VAT + real VAT
        nurettin 6y ago
        no, I mean whatever apple takes as commission, plus whatever apple thinks the regional VAT/cost is.

rofws 6y ago

This is a worrying development for my company. We have B2B products (that can be used from the web and mobile) that customers pay for per account, in bulk. I hope they don't start to apply the 30% cut there - our customers would find it impossible to pay 30% more for every user who uses an iPhone. We would have no choice but to stop having an iPhone app in that case.

Causality1 6y ago

The mobile device role is such a weird and mutated one. Closed systems like game consoles only run software the vendor approves and buyers go into it knowing it's a specialized device. Real computers can run any software the user wants and buyers fully expect their PCs to be as powerful and flexible as possible. Mobile devices occupy a weird middle ground where vendors try to give the impression they can do anything a PC can while simultaneously holding an iron grip around the entire software ecosystem.

heisenbit 6y ago

I don‘t believe being more perfect in license enforcement is going to save Apple in their anti-trust struggles but I can believe some lawyers may believe that.

marmada 6y ago

It feels like there's a tragedy of the commons situation here -- imagine if Amazon, Spotify, Google, and others unilaterally decided to block Apple. This would surely result in Apple folding

Razengan 6y ago
As if Amazon and Google are saints. Even if they colluded to "block" Apple (which would be illegal), millions of people would still continue using Apple.
- theontheone 6y ago
  It's not illegal or collusion to remove their apps and products from Apple phones. I disagree with you - if you couldn't use instagram / fb messenger(s) / tiktok / YouTube, wayyyy less people would buy Apple. https://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-engine/ https://fortune.com/2018/09/29/google-apple-safari-search-en... However, it doesn't look like this is happening anytime soon.
  - Razengan 6y ago
    Users could still always use the websites, which is what I do for those apps, especially after all the recent news about iOS 14 catching apps like Instagram and others secretly snooping your camera and clipboard etc.

anupamchugh 6y ago

Wordpress iOS app isn't used for buying domains. It's simply helps manage your website. Apple is going crazy and in a rush to reach the next trillion landmark.

non-entity 6y ago

> using the XML-RPC API included in core WP since WP 2.6 was released in 2008. Wow this is the first time I think I've heard of a real use of XML-RPC

stingraycharles 6y ago

Ok correct me if I’m wrong, but the rationale is pretty much that since there is a commercial version of Wordpress that this app interacts with, the user should be able to purchase this through Apple’s payment gateway? If this is correct, wouldn’t the same logic apply to other tools, such as JIRA and Trello and whatnot? Or am I mistaken?

throWaythxMod 6y ago

Why not use the website instead of an App? Other people said Safari is bad, but you aren't trying to play flash games, you are looking at JavaScript at most. (Not that I'd ever give Apple money, but trying to find solutions to those who made the mistake)

scarface74 6y ago

From the authors tweet “I am a big believer in the sanctity of licenses. (Open source relies on licenses and copyright.) We agreed to this license when we signed up for (and stayed in) the app store, so going to follow and abide by the rules. Not looking to skirt it, hence doing what they asked us to.” I wonder if someone had made that same argument here who wasn’t the author, would he get downvoted to oblivion?

tawayfree 6y ago

Mobile team seems doing poor job for the big picture of the apps at Automattic. Ex: Simplenote becomes famous of loss data. Matt should focus on hiring experienced engineers then interview and slack hackers with emojis. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.automattic.simplenote&hl=en&showAllReviews=true https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.automattic...

kdtsh 6y ago

This is all really making me rethink any future purchases of an iPhone. I don’t want to be anywhere near this.