57 ms·

ProtonMail CEO calls Apple's forced in-app purchases 'Mafia extortion'

681 points by illuminated 6y ago

varispeed 6y ago
I hope that the model Apple is using will be made illegal, most likely in the EU first. But I am concerned that if you have a one trillion dollars, they you pretty much can do anything you want, as with such money you can buy any decision. Apple should be forced to allow 3rd party app stores in their ecosystem. There are many other things Apple is doing wrong and all we can do now is to raise awareness about their shady practices. I am proud that I pretty much cured everyone in my circle from buying any Apple products.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > I am proud that I pretty much cured everyone in my circle from buying any Apple products. And buying what instead?
  - bitL 6y ago
    There are luckily some options for high-end now like ASUS ProArt and similar.
    - toiletfuneral 6y ago
      lol
  - kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
    Potentially unpopular opinion here on HN, but Android.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      And that avoids the rent-seeking problem... how?
      - manfredo 6y ago
        You can side load apps. You don't need to go through Google Play.
        whimsicalism 6y ago
        But, correct me if I'm wrong, vendors aren't allowed to bundle other app stores into the home screen if they want to use the Play store. That seems like classic rent-seeking.
        manfredo 6y ago
        But the point is, you can just download a .apk file and install like like you would on a desktop. You can even download a .apk file that installs an alternative app store. You do have to click through a couple screens with scary warning messages, but it's a much, much softer lock-in than Apple & the App Store.
        DenseComet 6y ago
        Well that's just the idea. In reality, most people only install apps from Google Play, and Google has decided that it also wants to enforce a 30% cut [1]. Sideloading provides an option, but for most developers, its not a realistic one (See: Epic putting Fortnite onto the Play Store after trying to get people to install by sideloading). [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/28/technology/google-play-store-30-percent.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/28/technology/google-play-st...
        manfredo 6y ago
        Sideloading amounts to downloading a .apk file and clicking yes on the prompt to install it. It's no more difficult than installing applications on Windows. I know firsthand that elementary school children are capable of sideloading apps. IIRC Google offered Epic more favorable rates after it released Fortnite through side loading. Presumably this indicates that sideloading was a success and Google didn't want Epic to set a precedence that bypassing the Play store is feasible.
    - esarbe 6y ago
      Not unpopular, but it just won't work; Google has already indicated that it also is going to want a 30% cut. And side-loading is not really an option for the average consumer. The problem of rent-seeking by monopolists will just go away by itself.
      - forty 6y ago
        You can just side load an other store, then install from there, which I think is acceptable UX since you really just have to install the store once.
        SSLy 6y ago
        Side-loaded stores can't auto-update apps. You have to confirm each app every time. It's unacceptable UX for a typical user.
        toastal 6y ago
        We’re going down the rabbit hole but a user can install Aurora Services to get background installs in conjunction with Aurora Store. Currently I would assume the same users that are using alt stores probably have root access to install. Similarly one can flash F-Droid’s privileged extension. https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS/AuroraService https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS/AuroraService https://gitlab.com/fdroid/privileged-extension https://gitlab.com/fdroid/privileged-extension
        whimsicalism 6y ago
        Oh yeah, but there are “no barriers” to using alternative app marketplaces and Google totally isn’t collecting a rent exactly like Apple. /s No chance in hell the average consumer is doing this, so they are effectively locked in.
        grogenaut 6y ago
        both owning a phone and having worked on large scale apps, users couldn't get an eff about updating apps and are in fact annoyed by it.
fermigier 6y ago
This reminds me of a very different time... In 1997, then CEO of Sybase Mitchell Kertzman said in an interview with the French trade magazine 01 Informatique: "Q: When you launched Jaguar CTS, a middleware tool competing with a Microsoft product, you received a rather explicit phone call... A: It was the Mafia! When I hung up, I realized that I had just received a phone call from the godfather who forbade me to sell drugs on his territory. And you know, Microsoft people behave like the Mafia: they don't have to break your leg, they just have to threaten you." Source (in French): http://bat8.inria.fr/~lang/hotlist/free/abuse/mafia/kertzman.html http://bat8.inria.fr/~lang/hotlist/free/abuse/mafia/kertzman...
- gherkinnn 6y ago
  Oh. Never got it as a child, but the Simpsons hat a bit about just that: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H27rfr59RiE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H27rfr59RiE
- brobdingnagians 6y ago
  Does he mean that Microsoft literally called him and told him not to use Jaguar CTS? Would that be telemetry phoning back when competing products were used? I'm a bit confused by the word choice there.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    He meant when he started selling it he got a phone call telling him not to do so from Microsoft.
- bitL 6y ago
  It seems like completing the Mafia trilogy games is a prerequisite for being a CxO...
- huhtenberg 6y ago
  Back in the early '00s there was a popular legend in the startup circles that you don't want Microsoft to be interested in what you do. The legend went that if Microsoft liked you and decided to acquire you, they would give you a binary choice between a low-ball offer and a lawsuit based on their patent portfolio.
SN76477 6y ago
Apple's walled garden is great for me as a consumer. I trust it I know the billing is simple I know apple stand by the transaction In the age of click bait and the information wars it is refreshing to trust the computer in my pocket.
Barrin92 6y ago
Apple is nothing else but the digital equivalent of a landlord extracting economic rents from everyone in the ecosystem. It's time to put an end to it, and while we're at it the same goes for all the other platform owners. We (in this case the EU) should give it the same treatment we gave credit card companies. Cap their rates at 1% or whatever so they can cover the operational costs of their stores, stop them from banning apps from their stores that aren't breaking any laws, and that's that. If they want to make more money for their shareholders they should actually build things rather than abuse their gatekeeper position. Just imagine if Microsoft had taken a 30% cut from every developer who ever compiled software for windows, or told them what software stack to use to develop their software. We'd have gone on the barricades immediately. Microsoft had to face scrutiny for bundling a browser, compared to what smartphone companies have done to their devices that was a joke
- d1zzy 6y ago
  When you will build your own piece of land from scratch then you also get to decide what laws govern it. The iPhone, iOS and the Apple Store exist because someone had the idea, will and spent tons of money building it. They aren't natural resources that Apple acquired and imposed on people so now everyone else has no choice but to pay the Apple tax. So I don't see how that analogy applies here.
  - zo1 6y ago
    What about the products of my labor that I create from scratch? Can I decide what laws govern that too? You know, like taxes? That idea went out the window a long time ago. Now we are all beholden to each-other and society on some level, so best we deal with it and solve these anti-competative issues and predatory platforms, otherwise let's agree that it's completely immoral and stop cherry-picking "moral rules" based on what we find useful at the time.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    >When you will build your own piece of land from scratch then you also get to decide what laws govern it. I don't know where you live but where I do the government determines laws, on my property or otherwise. i can't just do what i want on my property just because it's my property. Neither my actual land or the digital land of the app store are some sort of extraterritorial space, we're not living in the Shadowrun universe
ajb 6y ago
Despite all this, I currently have more respect for Apple's ethics than most other companies - currently. But if their incentives continue to lead them in this direction, Apple will be the Oracle of 2025. They should actually welcome regulation in this area, because its difficult for a company to change its own incentives.
- hu3 6y ago
  > Apple's ethics You know that, contrary to Google, Apple does not offer end-to-end encryption of backups so govs can access it right? https://www.androidcentral.com/apple-may-have-ditched-encrypted-backups-google-hasnt https://www.androidcentral.com/apple-may-have-ditched-encryp...
offtop5 6y ago
I actually like Apple's walled garden. If you want a phone which allows you to run random binaries found on the internet, buy an Android phone. I recently started submitted apps to the iOS store and I found it very much fair. I don't have to worry about scailing servers to host my .ipas, users are ensured I'm not going to try and hack their phones. I do think Apple should allow apps to clearly state they charge more due to Apple policies. But it's like if you come into Apple's house , you need to respect Apple's rules. I guarantee you within days of allowing 3rd party App stores users would be getting their IDs stolen and blaming Apple
holidayacct 6y ago
Forced in-app purchases are just a vector for governments to figure out who is using protonmail and how. They are better off avoiding apple as a platform if they don't understand why in app purchases are a bad idea given protonmail's business model.
sascha_sl 6y ago
ProtonMail complaining about extortion? That's rich. I was a visionary user for 2 years, and then decided to move somewhere where IMAP/SMTP was a bit easier to do than to run a piece of Go that somehow still required half of Gnome to run. The experience was full of dark patterns. There is simply no way to terminate at the end of your billing period (and I had an annual subscription). If you have custom domains, you lose them immediately upon clicking the unsubscribe button, as do you lose your only way to properly move data off the service (as they have still no export feature)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
dmitryminkovsky 6y ago
Guessing this is a hugely unpopular opinion here: A mafia engages in racketeering/extortion. They take a game that’s fair, and make it unfair. Instead of creating value, they steal it. Without the mafia, people would retain more value for themselves. Apple, on the other hand, created and maintains an enormous platform. Without Apple, the App Store would not exist. The rules are posted to a webpage and are applied more or less equally to everyone. All the transactions that occur in this App Store are value they enable to exist. Without Apple, instead of creating an app you would have to create an app and the platform and distribution mechanism etc. The cut they take, in light of this, seems more than reasonable to me. The hate Apple gets here and other places seems really misplaced to me. They’re not a common carrier. They’re not a monopoly. They’re not even close to being a monopoly. They’re a huge company, but there is plenty of competition out there. I don’t understand why people act like they can’t make the rules of their platform. Much less why people would say they are a mafia. Concretely about this post: it seems really naive! > "Out of the blue, one day they said you have to add in-app purchase to stay in the App Store. They stumbled upon something in the app that mentioned there were paid plans, they went to the website and saw there was a subscription you could purchase, and then turned around and demanded we add IAP. This sounds like a child making up a story for the principal. Come on... really? Proton mail is a huge thing. Apple’s rules are public and easy to understand. How is it that I can understand the App Store rules but Proton Mail cannot? Apple want their cut! They don’t want a mechanism to side step or encourage users to side step that cut. It’s so simple.
- MagnumOpus 6y ago
  You aggregate Apple the platform creating hardware and OS company with Apple App Store which extorts rents due to dominant market position on the Apple hardware far disproportionate to the value that it adds. (If it added that much value that 30% of revenues for every app that can be downloaded from there was fair, then they would have to prohibit other app stores.) The App Store is not necessarily linked to the hardware (just as IE isn’t linked to Windows, to show a similar antitrust issue), so Apple forcing the exclusive App Store platform contracts on users and value creating content companies looks a hell of a lot like a racket.
shmerl 6y ago
All this can be solved once and for all by requiring Apple to allow alternatives stores. They got away with this anti-competitive junk for too long.
- kmbfjr 6y ago
  What? No. Alternative stores will want to be installed by default, and then we're off to the bloatware races.
  - shmerl 6y ago
    That's the only way to curb Apple's brazen anti-competitive behavior.
LockAndLol 6y ago
No matter what Apple does, people will say they're right to do so. The biggest fuck you that app devs can show to Apple is to develop exclusively for Android. Then add a notice on their page WHY they won't develop an iOS app. Maybe even a hip hashtag like #AppleMafia Voilà. If you're treated like shit in a store, don't use the bloody store.
- johnnydoe9 6y ago
  If only that was possible but most companies won't bother trying in such a way cause they'd be losing out on a massively popular and profitable platform
fareesh 6y ago
Are food ordering apps in the US also forced to use IAP?
- millstone 6y ago
  No, IAP is for digital content only. Food ordering apps use Apple Pay, which incurs typical interchange fees (~1.5%)
codelord 6y ago
"ProtonMail says that Apple forced it to monetize its app". I stopped there. I have seen a lot of articles like this misleading the public about the issue. Apple didn't force them to monetize anything. It was monetized. Apple told them to use IAP or don't direct to your own payment system in the app. Either these journalists aren't capable of doing some basic research to understand the issue or are outright trying to deceive the public. Either way is saddening. Another deceiving post: https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/8/21506995/apple-forced-in-app-purchase-protonmail-ceo-wordpress-iap https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/8/21506995/apple-forced-in-... Edit: I see a lot of downvotes. Don't downvote! explain how is this "forcing to monetize". Webster dictionary: monetize - to utilize as a source of profit. Forcing to monetize means the app wasn't selling anything and Apple forced them to sell something. This is not the case! Apple forced them to choose between using IAP for payment system instead of their own system OR don't direct users to external payment system from within the app.
- intricatedetail 6y ago
  Care to explain why do you think these articles are deceptive?
  - codelord 6y ago
    I did explain it. Was there a part of it that was ambiguous? Apple didn't ask them to monetize, article says it did.
- brainless 6y ago
  ProtonMail user here: I think you are missing the point. They didn't have "in app" purchase ever. The email account being paid really isn't about the app in my opinion. I can use the same account on any device I want to. But now they must have IAP on Apple devices, for which they raise prices. Imagine Gmail personal now being mandatorily paid because they have optional pricing tiers on their website, that's linked in the free email client somewhere. It's boring the customer at the least.
  - codelord 6y ago
egberts1 6y ago
What better way for the government to find out who is using ProtonMail than by making Apple track your payments.
vinket 6y ago
https://kvch.in/blogs/what-does-an-hr-generalist-do-defining-the-day-to-day-duties https://kvch.in/blogs/what-does-an-hr-generalist-do-defining...
bokohut 6y ago
The payments landscape is under great flux for those of us that live it and know extremely well first hand. As a serial entrepayneur having been in this "game" for many decades more and more business' are coming to realize they need to own and control the process from customer to bank in order to offer better support in this now nearly complete digital online world. The middlemen are jockeying for position through value added service functions and customer lock in through such technologies as tokenization while the card brands and competing FinTechs continue to buy up all up and coming payments companies globally. If you want control you need to own it yet very few seem to understand this thinking as most believe payments is more than just ones and zeros which it is not.
londons_explore 6y ago
Most Mafias want an 80% cut, not a 30% cut...
whaaaaaaaaa 6y ago
ProtonMail charges a lot for their services and they have no problem with that. I don't see why Apple shouldn't get their cut.
- addicted 6y ago
  Is Protonmail taking a cut out of any transactions that may happen over your email?
  - whaaaaaaaaa 6y ago
    No. But I feel robbed when I have to pay $8/mo for an extra virtual email box. Sidenote: Apple also doesn't take a cut of any payments that I send with my iPhone.
    - hundchenkatze 6y ago
      Then you should feel robbed when $2.40 of that goes to an unrelated company.
      - whaaaaaaaaa 6y ago
        It's not like I want to build my own smartphone ecosystem or an encrypted email service. So I pay and get on with my life. No one forces me to do this.
        hundchenkatze 6y ago
        No one forces you to shitpost with a throwaway either, yet here we are...
    - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
      Is someone making you use ProtonMail?
      - 6y ago
birdyrooster 6y ago
How can one be forced to include in app purchases? This seems worded strangely. Maybe I missed the paragraph explaining how Apple did this.
- viktorcode 6y ago
  One can’t, and wasn’t. If you read carefully, you may reconstruct the actual issue and the store policy: Either Proton mail removes mention of their premium service from the app (and the app can still provide this service to anyone paying outside of App Store) or they keep it and then provide in-app purchases. They clearly decided to use IAPs. If you ask me, this is a smart move, as many customers won’t be bothering with other payment options.
- TonyTrapp 6y ago
  Quite simple: You are not allowed to push any further updates until you either 1) allow the subscription to be purchased through Apple or 2) make your service completely free so no IAP is required. Apple has been rejecting app updates for lesser reasons.
  - 188201 6y ago
    In addition, Apple doesn't want the app to lay out the fact that the extra customer will pay is an Apple tax, and ban the app because the app show "unnecessary information" to Apple customer.
- barake 6y ago
  They tell you to add IAPs that are to their liking, or you're out of the store for violations of the App Store Review Guidelines.
- mthoms 6y ago
  Before: One could subscribe only over the web. After: You can subscribe in-app (in addition to online) and Apple takes a cut of that purchase. You aren't allowed to mention anywhere in the App that there are alternate (perhaps cheaper) purchase methods.
quest88 6y ago
They knew about the cut before writing their iOS app. Edit: I was wrong; misread.
- Pick-A-Hill2019 6y ago
  A direct quote from the CEO appears to say otherwise - "Out of the blue, one day they said you have to add in-app purchase to stay in the App Store. "
  - quest88 6y ago
    Oh whoops you're right. I misread, thanks!
- sebastien_b 6y ago
  But nothing said they had to include in-app purchase in their app; then suddenly, after being in the store 2 years already, Apple said they had to (and hence Apple would get a cut).
newbie578 6y ago
Another thread where people will fly to defend Apple and explain how it's circumstances are similar to PS and Xbox and no one is coming after Sony, yet everyone conveniently decides not to compare Apple to early 2000s Microsoft which is basically a mirror situation. I guess people "expect" stuff like this from Apple which is the reason we are not allowed to criticize them, yet if Microsoft came out and said Steam breaks their "arbitrary rules" (well they are Microsoft rules, you need to respect them duuh) and kicked Steam off the whole Windows platform, all hell would break loose, people would be screaming for heads to fall..
- d1zzy 6y ago
  I don't need XBOX or PS5 to defend Apple. I will defend the rights of any non-monopoly (Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the phone market) that created their own hardware, software platform and digital market from scratch, to define their own rules governing said digital market whatsoever. However, do not confuse defending Apple's right to impose their rules with "liking" or "approving" what they do. Just because I believe Apple is in full rights to do all of this I do not like it so as I consumer I vote with my wallet, which is my right to do so just as is their right to impose rules on their platform. A lot of the people riling up against Apple seem to want to have the cake and eat it too. They want partake in the value of the Apple digital platform (both as consumers and developers) but then they want to force Apple to play by their own rules, not Apple's rules. That doesn't seem right to me plus it's just contradictory as it's very likely that Apple being able to enforce their own rules is what created the value of their platform anyway.
  - newbie578 6y ago
    I respect your opinion and you have the right to defend any non-monopoly or even a monopoly, that is your basic human right, just know that Apple is not a non-monopoly, we are not looking and talking about worldwide market share, since Apple is based in the U.S. and answers to the U.S. courts, so you have to look at the U.S. market share, which quite in fact to no one's surprise is monopolistic (over 50%) . See Hayden Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Cox Broad. Corp., 730 F.2d 64, 69 n.7 (2d Cir. 1984) ("[A] party may have monopoly power in a particular market, even though its market share is less than 50%."); Broadway Delivery Corp. v. UPS, 651 F.2d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 1981) ("[W]hen the evidence presents a fair jury issue of monopoly power, the jury should not be told that it must find monopoly power lacking below a specified share."); Yoder Bros., Inc. v. Cal.-Fla. Plant Corp., 537 F.2d, 1347, 1367 n.19 (5th Cir. 1976) (rejecting "a rigid rule requiring 50% of the market for a monopolization offense without regard to any other factors"). And even IF Apple has not the dominant market share (which it does), it can still be engaged in anti-competitive practices, which it is currently being trialed for. And last but not least, we (be it me as a consumer, Epic as a company, or Spotify) are not asking Apple to play by our own rules, but by the rules of LAW. I feel like a lot of people are missing this point, this is the reason Epic is taking Apple to court, not because it won't play to Epic's rules but because of free market rules on which this country has been built.
hollander 6y ago
I hope they will complain about this with the EU. Maybe the EU can stop this nonsense.
- kmbfjr 6y ago
  I'm sure there will be an EU mandated change that results in an extremely shitty user experience.
- Pick-A-Hill2019 6y ago
  [1] might bolster their chances <<Context>> former Apple executive says the Cupertino tech giant uses its "arbitrary" App Store policies "as a weapon" to restrict competition. [1] https://www.techspot.com/news/87038-former-app-store-exec-testifies-apple-rules-weapon.html https://www.techspot.com/news/87038-former-app-store-exec-te...
- znpy 6y ago
  Afaik ProtonMail is based in Switzerland, thus they might not be able to involve the EU.
  - vulcan01 6y ago
    If you scroll to the very bottom of https://protonmail.com https://protonmail.com, you'll find that "This project is supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 program". I'm not sure whether Swiss companies can apply to this grant, but it does seem like ProtonMail have some sort of relationship with the EU.
  - Pick-A-Hill2019 6y ago
    Correct. But all it needs is for one company that is (or has offices in) the EU to to set a precedent. The US is also making rumblings and I had high hopes when I started reading the senate report [2]that began "Nearly a century ago, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” Those words speak to us with great urgency today." However the conclusions (page 375 for the impatient) left me underwhelmed although their comparison to the early heydays of the railroad empire made me chuckle. [2] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7222836/Investigation-of-Competition-in-Digital-Markets.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7222836/Investiga...
simonh 6y ago
I have no problem with Apple's basic approach with the App Store, they provide a service and are entitled to charge for it. I do think they have gone too far with some of their practices though. This sort of shake down of free apps is over-reach and I'm glad they have revised the App Store guidelines. I hope this sort of arm-twisting doesn't happen in future. It is a tricky issue. As I said it's their product their rules, but those rules do need to be clear, be fair and be impartially applied. I really don't want to see heavy handed regulation in this area, which could be incredibly damaging.
- kmbfjr 6y ago
  Not only that, but they are charging entrepreneurial rates for something that is now, a very mature business. Apple's woes on this matter are largely Apple's creation. However, if developers want to accept payment outside of Apple's App store, then they should be prepared to pay elsewhere. The argument that the hardware purchase pays for the app store is bunk in my opinion, the hardware purchase pays for the hardware and the OS.
secretsatan 6y ago
From the article : Apple responded, saying that free companion apps to paid online services are no longer required to have in-app purchases as of September 11, 2020. As long as paid upgrades are not offered through the app and it has no notifications to customers about an external subscription service, everything is fine. So....
- jm4 6y ago
  So... Apple has a say in how or when a company communicates with its own customers inside of an app the company developed and customer chose to use simply because that app is running on an iPhone. This is asinine.
- isoprophlex 6y ago
  Not a protonmail user, but fastmail, which is in a similar boat i guess. I really hope this means fastmail won't be forced to start billing through IAP. Apple gets enough of my money already, and I don't want it eating up fastmails profit margins, as I think they offer a stellar product.
- nvrspyx 6y ago
  From the article, emphasis mine: > Out of the blue, one day they said you have to add in-app purchase to stay in the App Store. They stumbled upon something in the app that mentioned there were paid plans, they went to the website and saw there was a subscription you could purchase, and then turned around and demanded we add IAP. It's apparently not just "no notifications". Below is the actual Apple guidelines. Notice that it is not "notifications", but "call to action". In practice, it may be "slightest hint". > Free apps acting as a stand-alone companion to a paid web based tool (eg. VOIP, Cloud Storage, Email Services, Web Hosting) do not need to use in-app purchase, provided there is no purchasing inside the app, or calls to action for purchase outside of the app
- politician 6y ago
  If I were Protonmail, I would just start emailing customers about the subscription service instead of baking into the app. Maybe delay the campaign until after the app is accepted. This policy from Apple is ridiculous.
lc9er 6y ago
Not necessarily related, but I’m subscriptioned and incremental-purchased out. Any time I see “In-App purchase”, I immediately skip the app.
- simonh 6y ago
  I do sympathise, but IAP can be implemented in useful ways. For example games with DLC such as extra campaigns or game modes. I'm a big fan of a war game on iOS that offers additional maps as IAPs. Unfortunately most IAPs are in the form of pay to win crap like gems and coins, but it doesn't have to be that way.
  - mcintyre1994 6y ago
    The App Store also shows the list of IAPs for an app so you can distinguish between the add-on and garbage style before installing.
    - joshstrange 6y ago
      ^This. When I see "This app has IAP" or whatever the copy is I just scroll down and see if the IAP looks like: * 1 month subscription * 1 year subscription * Lifetime subscription OR * Full Unlock OR * Level pack 1 * Level pack 2 * Level pack 3 OR * 10 gems * 20 gems * 30 gems ... If it's one of the first 3 then I'm more than happy to get the app. I don't mind paying through IAP to unlock the full app, pay for a subscription (within reason), or get more content. I am completely uninterested in using a fake digital currency inside your app. Doing that tells me everything I need to know about the app and the developer(s) behind it. In my book every "free-to-play" game that monetizes like this (even if they try to say they aren't "pay-to-win"/"pay-to-play") is trash. I don't want to hear "It's a fun game and you don't have to pay to enjoy it/play it", that's bullshit. I've yet to play an example of such a game that didn't (eventually) make the game unplayable/unbeatable without paying.
x2f10 6y ago
I read the article, but I'm still stuck on why Apple is asking for IAP to be included. Is the argument: "Hey, your app works with subscription services. You need to give Apple users the option to purchase via the App Store." If so, why doesn't Fastmail (from what I can tell) offer IAP? Isn't this the same idea?
- viktorcode 6y ago
  The rules are simple: if you mention in your app about the premium service tier, then you have to offer it inside the app with built in purchases. Don’t want to have IAPs? Don’t mention the premium service you have for sale elsewhere. That’s the option picked by many companies. So, in reality Apple doesn’t force developers to adopt in-app purchases. They make them follow the rule I outlined here.
- 1123581321 6y ago
  Don’t they? They said in June that they’d planned to and were also asked to. https://mobile.twitter.com/Fastmail/status/1273800222989324288 https://mobile.twitter.com/Fastmail/status/12738002229893242...
croh 6y ago
Google/Apple should drop the percentage. 30% is too high.
- viktorcode 6y ago
  If you are a market leader in attracting developers and customers while keeping this commission, that is too low.
- joshstrange 6y ago
  Honest question, should Sony/MS/Nintendo also drop their percentage? How about the cut stores get to put products on their shelves? Because whenever I zoom out and look at more that just Google/Apple the more I see examples of this happening everywhere and I wonder why there isn't similar outrage. Like with the whole "FB mad that Apple wouldn't let them call out the 30% cut" thing, I mean Kroger isn't going to let a company print on their box "Kroger takes 30% of this sale"...
  - criddell 6y ago
    > should Sony/MS/Nintendo also drop their percentage? Yes. > How about the cut stores get to put products on their shelves? No. A digital store has an essentially unlimited capacity and carrying a new product involves doing a review and adding a new record in a database. Kroger, on the other hand, has to do this and manage limited shelf space. The limited resource in an app store is the slot in some promotion carousel. Go ahead and charge whatever you want for that.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    Sony/ect don't have nearly the same market dominance over a huge industry, as compared to Apple. Apple has 50% of the entire US smart phone market. This is a significant larger amount of market power then those other situations.
    - nomel 6y ago
      I think his point is that every middle man is doing it, so it's more like 100% of the products you purchase indirectly.
api 6y ago
It's the price we all pay for ignoring user experience. This goes way back. Take this from the old jargon file: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/P/point-and-drool-interface.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/P/point-and-drool-inter... From the earliest days of computing, hacker types have regarded ease of use and simplicity as indicative of stupidity and as a "dumbing down" of computing. This mentality survives to this day in the fetish that so many have for complexity and the fact that UI/UX is often the last thing to get attention in designs led by programmers. Apple meanwhile took the opposite stance. Computers should be easy to use. Complexity is bad, especially at the UI level. Things should "just work." Calling bullshit on the sentiment in that Jargon file entry above made Apple for a time the most valuable company on Earth. The tax we now have to pay to them is a dumb tax for the cult of complexity and "real men do it manually" bullshit. To break the App Store and Apple semi-monopoly, start not by criticizing but by asking why it is so successful. Only by answering that question will any challenger including FOSS be able to successfully compete with it.
croh 6y ago
Google/Apple should drop the percentage. 30% is too high. Store is a kind of ecosystem which based on the mutual benefits of both Apple and Devs. Devs helped to accelerate their products. Having billions in reserve, they should not hurt this relationship.
- d1zzy 6y ago
  > 30% is too high What determines what is too high here? If it's about the cost of it (it costs Google/Apple much less money to build and maintain an ecosystem so they can "afford" to do it) wouldn't that imply that there is a huge market opportunity for someone else to build their own ecosystem and charge less? But maybe because that doesn't happen is proof that it may not be "too high".
  - nvrspyx 6y ago
    > imply there is a huge market opportunity for someone else to build their own ecosystem and charge less? Hmmm. Let's see what one would need to do at a bare minimum: - start manufacturing phones - build own OS (or fork Android) - develop own SDK - develop own online store infrastructure - manufacture other devices (e.g. Apple) and/or develop other services (e.g. Google) to complete "ecosystem" The barrier to entry in developing a mobile (and beyond) ecosystem is astronomical when competing with either Apple or Google. It's practically impossible to break into a multi-trillion dollar market when it's siloed to two multi-trillion dollar corporations.
    - viktorcode 6y ago
      That actually pretty good explanation why mobile stores' commissions won’t be reduced any time soon.
    - donmcronald 6y ago
      And it barely makes a difference. You’d still need to deal with Apple and Google. There’s no way to get enough competition into the mobile OS market to make it healthy. They need to be regulated with a big stick.
traveler01 6y ago
Well, true that's kinda how Mafia works.
- d1zzy 6y ago
  Except the Mafia hasn't built from scratch the neighborhood it asks "protection money" from, it already existed there and they pushed out anyone able to stand up to them and started enforcing their rules over the people already living there. Also comparing an organization that terrorizes, mauls and murders people in real life living in their home neighborhood to a company that imposes strict rules to ensure they get a cut of every sale on their own digital platform seems far fetched.
  - dingaling 6y ago
    Well one could say that all those mafiosi keep the opportunistic criminals out of the neighborhood and make it safe for the law-abiding businessman and resident. So in essence yes, they built the society by providing a predictable and stable order. Follow the rules and you'll be fine and will be safe from arbitrary crime. A form of societal curation, one might say. And they need paid to keep maintaining this service, and 30% doesn't seem too high does it? For the benefits they provide? Just don't try to fiddle your accounts to hide any other income you have, or try any other tricks; you might find your contract terminated.
  - adventured 6y ago
    > Also comparing an organization that terrorizes, mauls and murders people in real life living in their home neighborhood to a company that imposes strict rules to ensure they get a cut of every sale on their own digital platform seems far fetched. It's not far fetched, it's moronic, immature and quotable clickbait trash. The CEO is trying to get attention by saying something blatantly extreme. It's perfectly representative of the age we live in, where people lack self-control and routinely throw outrage tantrums like they're children and desperate for attention at all times. He might as well have declared that Tim Cook is a murderous despot, just go ahead and leap to the finish line for that mental train of stupidity.
- 6y ago
toastal 6y ago
Let's just use PWA! Oh wait, no push notifications, proprietary asset properties, and other crippled feature sets on iOS? Guess that option is out too.
- coder543 6y ago
  You want an email app to be able to have notifications?! -- Apple, surprised pikachu face, probably It has been over 5 years since Chrome for Android added support for push notifications. Apple needs to stop dragging their heels here, since they are clearly using every excuse in the book not to let users receive notification from apps outside the app store purely because it benefits them financially to do this, in a manner that is very anti-consumer and anti-developer. Users don't have to be assaulted with drive-by notification requests. Safari can require that PWAs only be given the chance to receive push notification permission after being added to the home screen. It's not rocket science. SpaceX landed a rocket booster almost 5 years ago, and they've gone through the certification process to send astronauts to the space station, and they're well on their way to making their next-gen Starship platform orbital. But Apple can't figure out a way to support APNS for PWAs. It's just too hard! Apparently. If PWAs supported APNS, Apple would have a significantly more defensible anti-trust position, but Apple has shown that they just have no interest in making things easier for themselves -- let alone their users or developers. Apple also supports PWAs so poorly that the new App Library feature doesn't even properly support them. PWAs have no option to be removed from the home screen and left in the App Library, unlike all other apps, and iOS 14 is the first time that there has been any distinction between PWAs and regular apps as far as the home screen is concerned. This is without even discussing the lack of widget support for PWAs, which would legitimately be challenging for Apple to support well, unlike APNS. I say all of this as someone who really likes iPhone, and is frustrated that Apple seems to be doing everything possible this year to push me back to Android. Just add APNS support to PWAs that have been added to the home screen, Apple! And please don't wait another 5 years to do it.
  - pier25 6y ago
    > If PWAs supported APNS, Apple would have a significantly more defensible anti-trust position, but Apple has shown that they just have no interest in making things easier for themselves I've been wondering about this for the past couple of weeks. Is Apple really so blind that they don't see they are digging themselves into a hole? If iOS had first-class support for PWAs they could probably keep running the AppStore in any way they wish.
bsg75 6y ago
I'm actually happier to pay a small premium for IAP based subscriptions because of the cancellation options. Having been subjected to asinine "retention" policies that make ending a subscription service an onerous and time consuming process (ex: NYT), and having seen first hand how a company purposefully makes subscription cancellations difficult, being able to open a single interface and click `Cancel` is a massive UX benefit. I'm not debating if a 30% cut is reasonable, but in the drive to move everything to a subscription model, I have started avoiding services without an IAP option.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  And honestly, I have no problem with Apple even insisting there be an Apple IAP model (like they require "Sign in with Apple" offered alongside alternatives). Because choosing to pay the Apple tax is perfectly fine, especially if you feel it provides you benefits. The issue is Apple's requirement that you can only use IAP, cannot offer alternative, cheaper, prices, cannot direct people to your website to sign up for things, and cannot even disclose what portion of the bill goes to Apple. Your post proves Apple could still make money with offering it as an option for informed users. But Apple is being a bully and a thug by disallowing alternatives, and actively preventing app developers from telling people about them. What Epic did with Fortnite should be the gold standard: Buy direct or pay through Apple. The latter providing potentially better privacy/security and user experience at a price premium.
  - gshulegaard 6y ago
    I somewhat disagree. I think the gold standard would have been for Fortnite to simply increase the prices of IAP purchases on iOS devices to pass the 30% on to consumers who choose to use iOS IAP. I can't seem to find a rule that says pricing must be the same for IAP as elsewhere in current guidelines: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#subscriptions https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#sub... That seems like the best of both worlds in the sense that as a user you can choose to purchase in iOS for convenience or go to Fortnite elsewhere and purchase there for cheaper. This move just seems like Epic wanted to pick a fight, they weren't actually interested in offsetting the Apple cut.
s17n 6y ago
All that Apple is really accomplishing is to ensure that the only viable business model will be ads.
- viktorcode 6y ago
  That’s how Google’s Play Market operates. Apple can afford to run premium store, as no side loading means no piracy.
namanaggarwal 6y ago
What problem does Apple have with PWAs (apart from monetary ones ofcourse), how are they justifying not implementing features in browser for a good PWA?
- viktorcode 6y ago
  They are far more interested in bringing media and privacy features to Safari. That’s part of their business. Exactly like making web apps is part of Google’s. Hence, the difference.
- pier25 6y ago
  IMO there is no real justification, but I've seen people from the Webkit team on Twitter claim privacy related issues.
  - coder543 6y ago
    Agreed. PWAs added to the home screen should be able to at least have push notifications, and those notification settings should be able to be managed in the Settings app exactly as if the PWA were an app installed through the App Store. It's absolutely not a privacy or security issue.
- nlitened 6y ago
  My battery life and privacy.
  - thewebcount 6y ago
    And user experience. There are native parts of the OS for which there are no PWA hooks (and it would basically be reimplementing the entire OS in the browser to add them all). They want the experience on their devices to be the full experience, not the limited web experience you get with PWAs.
  - coder543 6y ago
    A web app added to your home screen affects privacy much less than a native app, since it is even more sandboxed and restricted, and it even affects battery life less in some areas due to these restrictions. Native apps can schedule background tasks, among other things that would impact your battery life and privacy. So... disagree entirely. Please provide concrete examples of how a native app is less capable of invading your privacy than a web app that has been added to your home screen. (Please keep in mind that home screen PWAs don't even have the same level of access to your Safari sessions that random websites have, which is why you have to log into PWAs a second time, even if you are already logged in using Safari.)
rickyc091 6y ago
A Plus plan is currently $5/mo through their web. If you purchase an annual plan it's $4/mo ($48). From what I can see, you can only purchase an annual plan on iOS for $60/mo. They also have fine print that states that Apple takes a 30% fee.
pier25 6y ago
The walled garden could have worked if Apple had acted as a benevolent dictator. Instead, it degraded into a despot and it will face the consequences of this.
ramenandtrance 6y ago
I think this is what happens when we have a "feudal system". People have given over control to a few feudal lords. We increasingly don't control our infrastructure or data. We are seeing the consolidation of power into the hands of a few powerful organizations. Once you get locked into your walled in garden, it's difficult to leave, be this for developers or end users, and these organizations know it.
- intricatedetail 6y ago
  The last element is cashless society. They'll be able to delete your means to survive if you don't obey the t&c.
rgbrenner 6y ago
In August Wordpress complained about the same thing... and Apple apologized and changed the policy: https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/22/21397424/apple-wordpress-apology-iap-free-ios-app https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/22/21397424/apple-wordpress-... Protonmail brings up a 2018 incident that has already been addressed by the new policy. What point does this article serve? I think it's just free and easy publicity for ProtonMail. If they had spoken up earlier, maybe they could have been the reason for change instead of WordPress.
- viktorcode 6y ago
  That is an incorrect conclusion. Apple apologised that the language of App Store guidelines wasn’t clear enough. The policy in question hasn’t been changed. The changes to App Store guidelines were announced in June, before the situation with Wordpress. Those changes were published in August. Wordpress changed their app to follow the policy by removing the mention of their premium service. Sadly, the Verge doesn’t make any of it clear.
- pier25 6y ago
  > maybe they could have been the reason for change instead of WordPress I seriously doubt Apple would have listened to ProtonMail. Look what happened to HEY.
diegorbaquero 6y ago
I am sure if Apple dropped the percentage to single-digit, no developer would argue the value that IAP provide, the problem has always been the exorbitant 30%.

681 points by illuminated 6y ago

I hope that the model Apple is using will be made illegal, most likely in the EU first. But I am concerned that if you have a one trillion dollars, they you pretty much can do anything you want, as with such money you can buy any decision. Apple should be forced to allow 3rd party app stores in their ecosystem. There are many other things Apple is doing wrong and all we can do now is to raise awareness about their shady practices. I am proud that I pretty much cured everyone in my circle from buying any Apple products.

whimsicalism 6y ago
> I am proud that I pretty much cured everyone in my circle from buying any Apple products. And buying what instead?
- bitL 6y ago
  There are luckily some options for high-end now like ASUS ProArt and similar.
  - toiletfuneral 6y ago
    lol
- kinkrtyavimoodh 6y ago
  Potentially unpopular opinion here on HN, but Android.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    And that avoids the rent-seeking problem... how?
    - manfredo 6y ago
      You can side load apps. You don't need to go through Google Play.
      - whimsicalism 6y ago
        But, correct me if I'm wrong, vendors aren't allowed to bundle other app stores into the home screen if they want to use the Play store. That seems like classic rent-seeking.
        manfredo 6y ago
        But the point is, you can just download a .apk file and install like like you would on a desktop. You can even download a .apk file that installs an alternative app store. You do have to click through a couple screens with scary warning messages, but it's a much, much softer lock-in than Apple & the App Store.
      - DenseComet 6y ago
        Well that's just the idea. In reality, most people only install apps from Google Play, and Google has decided that it also wants to enforce a 30% cut [1]. Sideloading provides an option, but for most developers, its not a realistic one (See: Epic putting Fortnite onto the Play Store after trying to get people to install by sideloading). [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/28/technology/google-play-store-30-percent.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/28/technology/google-play-st...
        manfredo 6y ago
        Sideloading amounts to downloading a .apk file and clicking yes on the prompt to install it. It's no more difficult than installing applications on Windows. I know firsthand that elementary school children are capable of sideloading apps. IIRC Google offered Epic more favorable rates after it released Fortnite through side loading. Presumably this indicates that sideloading was a success and Google didn't want Epic to set a precedence that bypassing the Play store is feasible.
  - esarbe 6y ago
    Not unpopular, but it just won't work; Google has already indicated that it also is going to want a 30% cut. And side-loading is not really an option for the average consumer. The problem of rent-seeking by monopolists will just go away by itself.
    - forty 6y ago
      You can just side load an other store, then install from there, which I think is acceptable UX since you really just have to install the store once.
      - SSLy 6y ago
        Side-loaded stores can't auto-update apps. You have to confirm each app every time. It's unacceptable UX for a typical user.
        toastal 6y ago
        We’re going down the rabbit hole but a user can install Aurora Services to get background installs in conjunction with Aurora Store. Currently I would assume the same users that are using alt stores probably have root access to install. Similarly one can flash F-Droid’s privileged extension. https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS/AuroraService https://gitlab.com/AuroraOSS/AuroraService https://gitlab.com/fdroid/privileged-extension https://gitlab.com/fdroid/privileged-extension
        whimsicalism 6y ago
        Oh yeah, but there are “no barriers” to using alternative app marketplaces and Google totally isn’t collecting a rent exactly like Apple. /s No chance in hell the average consumer is doing this, so they are effectively locked in.
        grogenaut 6y ago
        both owning a phone and having worked on large scale apps, users couldn't get an eff about updating apps and are in fact annoyed by it.

fermigier 6y ago

This reminds me of a very different time... In 1997, then CEO of Sybase Mitchell Kertzman said in an interview with the French trade magazine 01 Informatique: "Q: When you launched Jaguar CTS, a middleware tool competing with a Microsoft product, you received a rather explicit phone call... A: It was the Mafia! When I hung up, I realized that I had just received a phone call from the godfather who forbade me to sell drugs on his territory. And you know, Microsoft people behave like the Mafia: they don't have to break your leg, they just have to threaten you." Source (in French): http://bat8.inria.fr/~lang/hotlist/free/abuse/mafia/kertzman.html http://bat8.inria.fr/~lang/hotlist/free/abuse/mafia/kertzman...

gherkinnn 6y ago
Oh. Never got it as a child, but the Simpsons hat a bit about just that: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H27rfr59RiE https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H27rfr59RiE
brobdingnagians 6y ago
Does he mean that Microsoft literally called him and told him not to use Jaguar CTS? Would that be telemetry phoning back when competing products were used? I'm a bit confused by the word choice there.
- pjc50 6y ago
  He meant when he started selling it he got a phone call telling him not to do so from Microsoft.
bitL 6y ago
It seems like completing the Mafia trilogy games is a prerequisite for being a CxO...
huhtenberg 6y ago
Back in the early '00s there was a popular legend in the startup circles that you don't want Microsoft to be interested in what you do. The legend went that if Microsoft liked you and decided to acquire you, they would give you a binary choice between a low-ball offer and a lawsuit based on their patent portfolio.

SN76477 6y ago

Apple's walled garden is great for me as a consumer. I trust it I know the billing is simple I know apple stand by the transaction In the age of click bait and the information wars it is refreshing to trust the computer in my pocket.

Barrin92 6y ago

Apple is nothing else but the digital equivalent of a landlord extracting economic rents from everyone in the ecosystem. It's time to put an end to it, and while we're at it the same goes for all the other platform owners. We (in this case the EU) should give it the same treatment we gave credit card companies. Cap their rates at 1% or whatever so they can cover the operational costs of their stores, stop them from banning apps from their stores that aren't breaking any laws, and that's that. If they want to make more money for their shareholders they should actually build things rather than abuse their gatekeeper position. Just imagine if Microsoft had taken a 30% cut from every developer who ever compiled software for windows, or told them what software stack to use to develop their software. We'd have gone on the barricades immediately. Microsoft had to face scrutiny for bundling a browser, compared to what smartphone companies have done to their devices that was a joke

d1zzy 6y ago
When you will build your own piece of land from scratch then you also get to decide what laws govern it. The iPhone, iOS and the Apple Store exist because someone had the idea, will and spent tons of money building it. They aren't natural resources that Apple acquired and imposed on people so now everyone else has no choice but to pay the Apple tax. So I don't see how that analogy applies here.
- zo1 6y ago
  What about the products of my labor that I create from scratch? Can I decide what laws govern that too? You know, like taxes? That idea went out the window a long time ago. Now we are all beholden to each-other and society on some level, so best we deal with it and solve these anti-competative issues and predatory platforms, otherwise let's agree that it's completely immoral and stop cherry-picking "moral rules" based on what we find useful at the time.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  >When you will build your own piece of land from scratch then you also get to decide what laws govern it. I don't know where you live but where I do the government determines laws, on my property or otherwise. i can't just do what i want on my property just because it's my property. Neither my actual land or the digital land of the app store are some sort of extraterritorial space, we're not living in the Shadowrun universe

ajb 6y ago

Despite all this, I currently have more respect for Apple's ethics than most other companies - currently. But if their incentives continue to lead them in this direction, Apple will be the Oracle of 2025. They should actually welcome regulation in this area, because its difficult for a company to change its own incentives.

hu3 6y ago
> Apple's ethics You know that, contrary to Google, Apple does not offer end-to-end encryption of backups so govs can access it right? https://www.androidcentral.com/apple-may-have-ditched-encrypted-backups-google-hasnt https://www.androidcentral.com/apple-may-have-ditched-encryp...

offtop5 6y ago

I actually like Apple's walled garden. If you want a phone which allows you to run random binaries found on the internet, buy an Android phone. I recently started submitted apps to the iOS store and I found it very much fair. I don't have to worry about scailing servers to host my .ipas, users are ensured I'm not going to try and hack their phones. I do think Apple should allow apps to clearly state they charge more due to Apple policies. But it's like if you come into Apple's house , you need to respect Apple's rules. I guarantee you within days of allowing 3rd party App stores users would be getting their IDs stolen and blaming Apple

holidayacct 6y ago

Forced in-app purchases are just a vector for governments to figure out who is using protonmail and how. They are better off avoiding apple as a platform if they don't understand why in app purchases are a bad idea given protonmail's business model.

sascha_sl 6y ago

ProtonMail complaining about extortion? That's rich. I was a visionary user for 2 years, and then decided to move somewhere where IMAP/SMTP was a bit easier to do than to run a piece of Go that somehow still required half of Gnome to run. The experience was full of dark patterns. There is simply no way to terminate at the end of your billing period (and I had an annual subscription). If you have custom domains, you lose them immediately upon clicking the unsubscribe button, as do you lose your only way to properly move data off the service (as they have still no export feature)

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

dmitryminkovsky 6y ago

Guessing this is a hugely unpopular opinion here: A mafia engages in racketeering/extortion. They take a game that’s fair, and make it unfair. Instead of creating value, they steal it. Without the mafia, people would retain more value for themselves. Apple, on the other hand, created and maintains an enormous platform. Without Apple, the App Store would not exist. The rules are posted to a webpage and are applied more or less equally to everyone. All the transactions that occur in this App Store are value they enable to exist. Without Apple, instead of creating an app you would have to create an app and the platform and distribution mechanism etc. The cut they take, in light of this, seems more than reasonable to me. The hate Apple gets here and other places seems really misplaced to me. They’re not a common carrier. They’re not a monopoly. They’re not even close to being a monopoly. They’re a huge company, but there is plenty of competition out there. I don’t understand why people act like they can’t make the rules of their platform. Much less why people would say they are a mafia. Concretely about this post: it seems really naive! > "Out of the blue, one day they said you have to add in-app purchase to stay in the App Store. They stumbled upon something in the app that mentioned there were paid plans, they went to the website and saw there was a subscription you could purchase, and then turned around and demanded we add IAP. This sounds like a child making up a story for the principal. Come on... really? Proton mail is a huge thing. Apple’s rules are public and easy to understand. How is it that I can understand the App Store rules but Proton Mail cannot? Apple want their cut! They don’t want a mechanism to side step or encourage users to side step that cut. It’s so simple.

MagnumOpus 6y ago
You aggregate Apple the platform creating hardware and OS company with Apple App Store which extorts rents due to dominant market position on the Apple hardware far disproportionate to the value that it adds. (If it added that much value that 30% of revenues for every app that can be downloaded from there was fair, then they would have to prohibit other app stores.) The App Store is not necessarily linked to the hardware (just as IE isn’t linked to Windows, to show a similar antitrust issue), so Apple forcing the exclusive App Store platform contracts on users and value creating content companies looks a hell of a lot like a racket.

shmerl 6y ago

All this can be solved once and for all by requiring Apple to allow alternatives stores. They got away with this anti-competitive junk for too long.

kmbfjr 6y ago
What? No. Alternative stores will want to be installed by default, and then we're off to the bloatware races.
- shmerl 6y ago
  That's the only way to curb Apple's brazen anti-competitive behavior.

LockAndLol 6y ago

No matter what Apple does, people will say they're right to do so. The biggest fuck you that app devs can show to Apple is to develop exclusively for Android. Then add a notice on their page WHY they won't develop an iOS app. Maybe even a hip hashtag like #AppleMafia Voilà. If you're treated like shit in a store, don't use the bloody store.

johnnydoe9 6y ago
If only that was possible but most companies won't bother trying in such a way cause they'd be losing out on a massively popular and profitable platform

fareesh 6y ago

Are food ordering apps in the US also forced to use IAP?

millstone 6y ago
No, IAP is for digital content only. Food ordering apps use Apple Pay, which incurs typical interchange fees (~1.5%)

codelord 6y ago

"ProtonMail says that Apple forced it to monetize its app". I stopped there. I have seen a lot of articles like this misleading the public about the issue. Apple didn't force them to monetize anything. It was monetized. Apple told them to use IAP or don't direct to your own payment system in the app. Either these journalists aren't capable of doing some basic research to understand the issue or are outright trying to deceive the public. Either way is saddening. Another deceiving post: https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/8/21506995/apple-forced-in-app-purchase-protonmail-ceo-wordpress-iap https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/8/21506995/apple-forced-in-... Edit: I see a lot of downvotes. Don't downvote! explain how is this "forcing to monetize". Webster dictionary: monetize - to utilize as a source of profit. Forcing to monetize means the app wasn't selling anything and Apple forced them to sell something. This is not the case! Apple forced them to choose between using IAP for payment system instead of their own system OR don't direct users to external payment system from within the app.

intricatedetail 6y ago
Care to explain why do you think these articles are deceptive?
- codelord 6y ago
  I did explain it. Was there a part of it that was ambiguous? Apple didn't ask them to monetize, article says it did.
brainless 6y ago
ProtonMail user here: I think you are missing the point. They didn't have "in app" purchase ever. The email account being paid really isn't about the app in my opinion. I can use the same account on any device I want to. But now they must have IAP on Apple devices, for which they raise prices. Imagine Gmail personal now being mandatorily paid because they have optional pricing tiers on their website, that's linked in the free email client somewhere. It's boring the customer at the least.
- codelord 6y ago

egberts1 6y ago

What better way for the government to find out who is using ProtonMail than by making Apple track your payments.

vinket 6y ago

https://kvch.in/blogs/what-does-an-hr-generalist-do-defining-the-day-to-day-duties https://kvch.in/blogs/what-does-an-hr-generalist-do-defining...

bokohut 6y ago

The payments landscape is under great flux for those of us that live it and know extremely well first hand. As a serial entrepayneur having been in this "game" for many decades more and more business' are coming to realize they need to own and control the process from customer to bank in order to offer better support in this now nearly complete digital online world. The middlemen are jockeying for position through value added service functions and customer lock in through such technologies as tokenization while the card brands and competing FinTechs continue to buy up all up and coming payments companies globally. If you want control you need to own it yet very few seem to understand this thinking as most believe payments is more than just ones and zeros which it is not.

londons_explore 6y ago

Most Mafias want an 80% cut, not a 30% cut...

whaaaaaaaaa 6y ago

ProtonMail charges a lot for their services and they have no problem with that. I don't see why Apple shouldn't get their cut.

addicted 6y ago
Is Protonmail taking a cut out of any transactions that may happen over your email?
- whaaaaaaaaa 6y ago
  No. But I feel robbed when I have to pay $8/mo for an extra virtual email box. Sidenote: Apple also doesn't take a cut of any payments that I send with my iPhone.
  - hundchenkatze 6y ago
    Then you should feel robbed when $2.40 of that goes to an unrelated company.
    - whaaaaaaaaa 6y ago
      It's not like I want to build my own smartphone ecosystem or an encrypted email service. So I pay and get on with my life. No one forces me to do this.
      - hundchenkatze 6y ago
        No one forces you to shitpost with a throwaway either, yet here we are...
  - NikolaeVarius 6y ago
    Is someone making you use ProtonMail?
    - 6y ago

birdyrooster 6y ago

How can one be forced to include in app purchases? This seems worded strangely. Maybe I missed the paragraph explaining how Apple did this.

viktorcode 6y ago
One can’t, and wasn’t. If you read carefully, you may reconstruct the actual issue and the store policy: Either Proton mail removes mention of their premium service from the app (and the app can still provide this service to anyone paying outside of App Store) or they keep it and then provide in-app purchases. They clearly decided to use IAPs. If you ask me, this is a smart move, as many customers won’t be bothering with other payment options.
TonyTrapp 6y ago
Quite simple: You are not allowed to push any further updates until you either 1) allow the subscription to be purchased through Apple or 2) make your service completely free so no IAP is required. Apple has been rejecting app updates for lesser reasons.
- 188201 6y ago
  In addition, Apple doesn't want the app to lay out the fact that the extra customer will pay is an Apple tax, and ban the app because the app show "unnecessary information" to Apple customer.
barake 6y ago
They tell you to add IAPs that are to their liking, or you're out of the store for violations of the App Store Review Guidelines.
mthoms 6y ago
Before: One could subscribe only over the web. After: You can subscribe in-app (in addition to online) and Apple takes a cut of that purchase. You aren't allowed to mention anywhere in the App that there are alternate (perhaps cheaper) purchase methods.

quest88 6y ago

They knew about the cut before writing their iOS app. Edit: I was wrong; misread.

Pick-A-Hill2019 6y ago
A direct quote from the CEO appears to say otherwise - "Out of the blue, one day they said you have to add in-app purchase to stay in the App Store. "
- quest88 6y ago
  Oh whoops you're right. I misread, thanks!
sebastien_b 6y ago
But nothing said they had to include in-app purchase in their app; then suddenly, after being in the store 2 years already, Apple said they had to (and hence Apple would get a cut).

newbie578 6y ago

Another thread where people will fly to defend Apple and explain how it's circumstances are similar to PS and Xbox and no one is coming after Sony, yet everyone conveniently decides not to compare Apple to early 2000s Microsoft which is basically a mirror situation. I guess people "expect" stuff like this from Apple which is the reason we are not allowed to criticize them, yet if Microsoft came out and said Steam breaks their "arbitrary rules" (well they are Microsoft rules, you need to respect them duuh) and kicked Steam off the whole Windows platform, all hell would break loose, people would be screaming for heads to fall..

d1zzy 6y ago
I don't need XBOX or PS5 to defend Apple. I will defend the rights of any non-monopoly (Apple doesn't have a monopoly on the phone market) that created their own hardware, software platform and digital market from scratch, to define their own rules governing said digital market whatsoever. However, do not confuse defending Apple's right to impose their rules with "liking" or "approving" what they do. Just because I believe Apple is in full rights to do all of this I do not like it so as I consumer I vote with my wallet, which is my right to do so just as is their right to impose rules on their platform. A lot of the people riling up against Apple seem to want to have the cake and eat it too. They want partake in the value of the Apple digital platform (both as consumers and developers) but then they want to force Apple to play by their own rules, not Apple's rules. That doesn't seem right to me plus it's just contradictory as it's very likely that Apple being able to enforce their own rules is what created the value of their platform anyway.
- newbie578 6y ago
  I respect your opinion and you have the right to defend any non-monopoly or even a monopoly, that is your basic human right, just know that Apple is not a non-monopoly, we are not looking and talking about worldwide market share, since Apple is based in the U.S. and answers to the U.S. courts, so you have to look at the U.S. market share, which quite in fact to no one's surprise is monopolistic (over 50%) . See Hayden Publ'g Co., Inc. v. Cox Broad. Corp., 730 F.2d 64, 69 n.7 (2d Cir. 1984) ("[A] party may have monopoly power in a particular market, even though its market share is less than 50%."); Broadway Delivery Corp. v. UPS, 651 F.2d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 1981) ("[W]hen the evidence presents a fair jury issue of monopoly power, the jury should not be told that it must find monopoly power lacking below a specified share."); Yoder Bros., Inc. v. Cal.-Fla. Plant Corp., 537 F.2d, 1347, 1367 n.19 (5th Cir. 1976) (rejecting "a rigid rule requiring 50% of the market for a monopolization offense without regard to any other factors"). And even IF Apple has not the dominant market share (which it does), it can still be engaged in anti-competitive practices, which it is currently being trialed for. And last but not least, we (be it me as a consumer, Epic as a company, or Spotify) are not asking Apple to play by our own rules, but by the rules of LAW. I feel like a lot of people are missing this point, this is the reason Epic is taking Apple to court, not because it won't play to Epic's rules but because of free market rules on which this country has been built.

hollander 6y ago

I hope they will complain about this with the EU. Maybe the EU can stop this nonsense.

kmbfjr 6y ago
I'm sure there will be an EU mandated change that results in an extremely shitty user experience.
Pick-A-Hill2019 6y ago
[1] might bolster their chances <<Context>> former Apple executive says the Cupertino tech giant uses its "arbitrary" App Store policies "as a weapon" to restrict competition. [1] https://www.techspot.com/news/87038-former-app-store-exec-testifies-apple-rules-weapon.html https://www.techspot.com/news/87038-former-app-store-exec-te...
znpy 6y ago
Afaik ProtonMail is based in Switzerland, thus they might not be able to involve the EU.
- vulcan01 6y ago
  If you scroll to the very bottom of https://protonmail.com https://protonmail.com, you'll find that "This project is supported by the European Union's Horizon 2020 program". I'm not sure whether Swiss companies can apply to this grant, but it does seem like ProtonMail have some sort of relationship with the EU.
- Pick-A-Hill2019 6y ago
  Correct. But all it needs is for one company that is (or has offices in) the EU to to set a precedent. The US is also making rumblings and I had high hopes when I started reading the senate report [2]that began "Nearly a century ago, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis wrote: “We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” Those words speak to us with great urgency today." However the conclusions (page 375 for the impatient) left me underwhelmed although their comparison to the early heydays of the railroad empire made me chuckle. [2] https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7222836/Investigation-of-Competition-in-Digital-Markets.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7222836/Investiga...

simonh 6y ago

I have no problem with Apple's basic approach with the App Store, they provide a service and are entitled to charge for it. I do think they have gone too far with some of their practices though. This sort of shake down of free apps is over-reach and I'm glad they have revised the App Store guidelines. I hope this sort of arm-twisting doesn't happen in future. It is a tricky issue. As I said it's their product their rules, but those rules do need to be clear, be fair and be impartially applied. I really don't want to see heavy handed regulation in this area, which could be incredibly damaging.

kmbfjr 6y ago
Not only that, but they are charging entrepreneurial rates for something that is now, a very mature business. Apple's woes on this matter are largely Apple's creation. However, if developers want to accept payment outside of Apple's App store, then they should be prepared to pay elsewhere. The argument that the hardware purchase pays for the app store is bunk in my opinion, the hardware purchase pays for the hardware and the OS.

secretsatan 6y ago

From the article : Apple responded, saying that free companion apps to paid online services are no longer required to have in-app purchases as of September 11, 2020. As long as paid upgrades are not offered through the app and it has no notifications to customers about an external subscription service, everything is fine. So....

jm4 6y ago
So... Apple has a say in how or when a company communicates with its own customers inside of an app the company developed and customer chose to use simply because that app is running on an iPhone. This is asinine.
isoprophlex 6y ago
Not a protonmail user, but fastmail, which is in a similar boat i guess. I really hope this means fastmail won't be forced to start billing through IAP. Apple gets enough of my money already, and I don't want it eating up fastmails profit margins, as I think they offer a stellar product.
nvrspyx 6y ago
From the article, emphasis mine: > Out of the blue, one day they said you have to add in-app purchase to stay in the App Store. They stumbled upon something in the app that mentioned there were paid plans, they went to the website and saw there was a subscription you could purchase, and then turned around and demanded we add IAP. It's apparently not just "no notifications". Below is the actual Apple guidelines. Notice that it is not "notifications", but "call to action". In practice, it may be "slightest hint". > Free apps acting as a stand-alone companion to a paid web based tool (eg. VOIP, Cloud Storage, Email Services, Web Hosting) do not need to use in-app purchase, provided there is no purchasing inside the app, or calls to action for purchase outside of the app
politician 6y ago
If I were Protonmail, I would just start emailing customers about the subscription service instead of baking into the app. Maybe delay the campaign until after the app is accepted. This policy from Apple is ridiculous.

lc9er 6y ago

Not necessarily related, but I’m subscriptioned and incremental-purchased out. Any time I see “In-App purchase”, I immediately skip the app.

simonh 6y ago
I do sympathise, but IAP can be implemented in useful ways. For example games with DLC such as extra campaigns or game modes. I'm a big fan of a war game on iOS that offers additional maps as IAPs. Unfortunately most IAPs are in the form of pay to win crap like gems and coins, but it doesn't have to be that way.
- mcintyre1994 6y ago
  The App Store also shows the list of IAPs for an app so you can distinguish between the add-on and garbage style before installing.
  - joshstrange 6y ago
    ^This. When I see "This app has IAP" or whatever the copy is I just scroll down and see if the IAP looks like: * 1 month subscription * 1 year subscription * Lifetime subscription OR * Full Unlock OR * Level pack 1 * Level pack 2 * Level pack 3 OR * 10 gems * 20 gems * 30 gems ... If it's one of the first 3 then I'm more than happy to get the app. I don't mind paying through IAP to unlock the full app, pay for a subscription (within reason), or get more content. I am completely uninterested in using a fake digital currency inside your app. Doing that tells me everything I need to know about the app and the developer(s) behind it. In my book every "free-to-play" game that monetizes like this (even if they try to say they aren't "pay-to-win"/"pay-to-play") is trash. I don't want to hear "It's a fun game and you don't have to pay to enjoy it/play it", that's bullshit. I've yet to play an example of such a game that didn't (eventually) make the game unplayable/unbeatable without paying.

x2f10 6y ago

I read the article, but I'm still stuck on why Apple is asking for IAP to be included. Is the argument: "Hey, your app works with subscription services. You need to give Apple users the option to purchase via the App Store." If so, why doesn't Fastmail (from what I can tell) offer IAP? Isn't this the same idea?

viktorcode 6y ago
The rules are simple: if you mention in your app about the premium service tier, then you have to offer it inside the app with built in purchases. Don’t want to have IAPs? Don’t mention the premium service you have for sale elsewhere. That’s the option picked by many companies. So, in reality Apple doesn’t force developers to adopt in-app purchases. They make them follow the rule I outlined here.
1123581321 6y ago
Don’t they? They said in June that they’d planned to and were also asked to. https://mobile.twitter.com/Fastmail/status/1273800222989324288 https://mobile.twitter.com/Fastmail/status/12738002229893242...

croh 6y ago

Google/Apple should drop the percentage. 30% is too high.

viktorcode 6y ago
If you are a market leader in attracting developers and customers while keeping this commission, that is too low.
joshstrange 6y ago
Honest question, should Sony/MS/Nintendo also drop their percentage? How about the cut stores get to put products on their shelves? Because whenever I zoom out and look at more that just Google/Apple the more I see examples of this happening everywhere and I wonder why there isn't similar outrage. Like with the whole "FB mad that Apple wouldn't let them call out the 30% cut" thing, I mean Kroger isn't going to let a company print on their box "Kroger takes 30% of this sale"...
- criddell 6y ago
  > should Sony/MS/Nintendo also drop their percentage? Yes. > How about the cut stores get to put products on their shelves? No. A digital store has an essentially unlimited capacity and carrying a new product involves doing a review and adding a new record in a database. Kroger, on the other hand, has to do this and manage limited shelf space. The limited resource in an app store is the slot in some promotion carousel. Go ahead and charge whatever you want for that.
- stale2002 6y ago
  Sony/ect don't have nearly the same market dominance over a huge industry, as compared to Apple. Apple has 50% of the entire US smart phone market. This is a significant larger amount of market power then those other situations.
  - nomel 6y ago
    I think his point is that every middle man is doing it, so it's more like 100% of the products you purchase indirectly.

api 6y ago

It's the price we all pay for ignoring user experience. This goes way back. Take this from the old jargon file: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/P/point-and-drool-interface.html http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/P/point-and-drool-inter... From the earliest days of computing, hacker types have regarded ease of use and simplicity as indicative of stupidity and as a "dumbing down" of computing. This mentality survives to this day in the fetish that so many have for complexity and the fact that UI/UX is often the last thing to get attention in designs led by programmers. Apple meanwhile took the opposite stance. Computers should be easy to use. Complexity is bad, especially at the UI level. Things should "just work." Calling bullshit on the sentiment in that Jargon file entry above made Apple for a time the most valuable company on Earth. The tax we now have to pay to them is a dumb tax for the cult of complexity and "real men do it manually" bullshit. To break the App Store and Apple semi-monopoly, start not by criticizing but by asking why it is so successful. Only by answering that question will any challenger including FOSS be able to successfully compete with it.

croh 6y ago

Google/Apple should drop the percentage. 30% is too high. Store is a kind of ecosystem which based on the mutual benefits of both Apple and Devs. Devs helped to accelerate their products. Having billions in reserve, they should not hurt this relationship.

d1zzy 6y ago
> 30% is too high What determines what is too high here? If it's about the cost of it (it costs Google/Apple much less money to build and maintain an ecosystem so they can "afford" to do it) wouldn't that imply that there is a huge market opportunity for someone else to build their own ecosystem and charge less? But maybe because that doesn't happen is proof that it may not be "too high".
- nvrspyx 6y ago
  > imply there is a huge market opportunity for someone else to build their own ecosystem and charge less? Hmmm. Let's see what one would need to do at a bare minimum: - start manufacturing phones - build own OS (or fork Android) - develop own SDK - develop own online store infrastructure - manufacture other devices (e.g. Apple) and/or develop other services (e.g. Google) to complete "ecosystem" The barrier to entry in developing a mobile (and beyond) ecosystem is astronomical when competing with either Apple or Google. It's practically impossible to break into a multi-trillion dollar market when it's siloed to two multi-trillion dollar corporations.
  - viktorcode 6y ago
    That actually pretty good explanation why mobile stores' commissions won’t be reduced any time soon.
  - donmcronald 6y ago
    And it barely makes a difference. You’d still need to deal with Apple and Google. There’s no way to get enough competition into the mobile OS market to make it healthy. They need to be regulated with a big stick.

traveler01 6y ago

Well, true that's kinda how Mafia works.

d1zzy 6y ago
Except the Mafia hasn't built from scratch the neighborhood it asks "protection money" from, it already existed there and they pushed out anyone able to stand up to them and started enforcing their rules over the people already living there. Also comparing an organization that terrorizes, mauls and murders people in real life living in their home neighborhood to a company that imposes strict rules to ensure they get a cut of every sale on their own digital platform seems far fetched.
- dingaling 6y ago
  Well one could say that all those mafiosi keep the opportunistic criminals out of the neighborhood and make it safe for the law-abiding businessman and resident. So in essence yes, they built the society by providing a predictable and stable order. Follow the rules and you'll be fine and will be safe from arbitrary crime. A form of societal curation, one might say. And they need paid to keep maintaining this service, and 30% doesn't seem too high does it? For the benefits they provide? Just don't try to fiddle your accounts to hide any other income you have, or try any other tricks; you might find your contract terminated.
- adventured 6y ago
  > Also comparing an organization that terrorizes, mauls and murders people in real life living in their home neighborhood to a company that imposes strict rules to ensure they get a cut of every sale on their own digital platform seems far fetched. It's not far fetched, it's moronic, immature and quotable clickbait trash. The CEO is trying to get attention by saying something blatantly extreme. It's perfectly representative of the age we live in, where people lack self-control and routinely throw outrage tantrums like they're children and desperate for attention at all times. He might as well have declared that Tim Cook is a murderous despot, just go ahead and leap to the finish line for that mental train of stupidity.
6y ago

toastal 6y ago

Let's just use PWA! Oh wait, no push notifications, proprietary asset properties, and other crippled feature sets on iOS? Guess that option is out too.

coder543 6y ago
You want an email app to be able to have notifications?! -- Apple, surprised pikachu face, probably It has been over 5 years since Chrome for Android added support for push notifications. Apple needs to stop dragging their heels here, since they are clearly using every excuse in the book not to let users receive notification from apps outside the app store purely because it benefits them financially to do this, in a manner that is very anti-consumer and anti-developer. Users don't have to be assaulted with drive-by notification requests. Safari can require that PWAs only be given the chance to receive push notification permission after being added to the home screen. It's not rocket science. SpaceX landed a rocket booster almost 5 years ago, and they've gone through the certification process to send astronauts to the space station, and they're well on their way to making their next-gen Starship platform orbital. But Apple can't figure out a way to support APNS for PWAs. It's just too hard! Apparently. If PWAs supported APNS, Apple would have a significantly more defensible anti-trust position, but Apple has shown that they just have no interest in making things easier for themselves -- let alone their users or developers. Apple also supports PWAs so poorly that the new App Library feature doesn't even properly support them. PWAs have no option to be removed from the home screen and left in the App Library, unlike all other apps, and iOS 14 is the first time that there has been any distinction between PWAs and regular apps as far as the home screen is concerned. This is without even discussing the lack of widget support for PWAs, which would legitimately be challenging for Apple to support well, unlike APNS. I say all of this as someone who really likes iPhone, and is frustrated that Apple seems to be doing everything possible this year to push me back to Android. Just add APNS support to PWAs that have been added to the home screen, Apple! And please don't wait another 5 years to do it.
- pier25 6y ago
  > If PWAs supported APNS, Apple would have a significantly more defensible anti-trust position, but Apple has shown that they just have no interest in making things easier for themselves I've been wondering about this for the past couple of weeks. Is Apple really so blind that they don't see they are digging themselves into a hole? If iOS had first-class support for PWAs they could probably keep running the AppStore in any way they wish.

bsg75 6y ago

I'm actually happier to pay a small premium for IAP based subscriptions because of the cancellation options. Having been subjected to asinine "retention" policies that make ending a subscription service an onerous and time consuming process (ex: NYT), and having seen first hand how a company purposefully makes subscription cancellations difficult, being able to open a single interface and click `Cancel` is a massive UX benefit. I'm not debating if a 30% cut is reasonable, but in the drive to move everything to a subscription model, I have started avoiding services without an IAP option.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
And honestly, I have no problem with Apple even insisting there be an Apple IAP model (like they require "Sign in with Apple" offered alongside alternatives). Because choosing to pay the Apple tax is perfectly fine, especially if you feel it provides you benefits. The issue is Apple's requirement that you can only use IAP, cannot offer alternative, cheaper, prices, cannot direct people to your website to sign up for things, and cannot even disclose what portion of the bill goes to Apple. Your post proves Apple could still make money with offering it as an option for informed users. But Apple is being a bully and a thug by disallowing alternatives, and actively preventing app developers from telling people about them. What Epic did with Fortnite should be the gold standard: Buy direct or pay through Apple. The latter providing potentially better privacy/security and user experience at a price premium.
- gshulegaard 6y ago
  I somewhat disagree. I think the gold standard would have been for Fortnite to simply increase the prices of IAP purchases on iOS devices to pass the 30% on to consumers who choose to use iOS IAP. I can't seem to find a rule that says pricing must be the same for IAP as elsewhere in current guidelines: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#subscriptions https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#sub... That seems like the best of both worlds in the sense that as a user you can choose to purchase in iOS for convenience or go to Fortnite elsewhere and purchase there for cheaper. This move just seems like Epic wanted to pick a fight, they weren't actually interested in offsetting the Apple cut.

s17n 6y ago

All that Apple is really accomplishing is to ensure that the only viable business model will be ads.

viktorcode 6y ago
That’s how Google’s Play Market operates. Apple can afford to run premium store, as no side loading means no piracy.

namanaggarwal 6y ago

What problem does Apple have with PWAs (apart from monetary ones ofcourse), how are they justifying not implementing features in browser for a good PWA?

viktorcode 6y ago
They are far more interested in bringing media and privacy features to Safari. That’s part of their business. Exactly like making web apps is part of Google’s. Hence, the difference.
pier25 6y ago
IMO there is no real justification, but I've seen people from the Webkit team on Twitter claim privacy related issues.
- coder543 6y ago
  Agreed. PWAs added to the home screen should be able to at least have push notifications, and those notification settings should be able to be managed in the Settings app exactly as if the PWA were an app installed through the App Store. It's absolutely not a privacy or security issue.
nlitened 6y ago
My battery life and privacy.
- thewebcount 6y ago
  And user experience. There are native parts of the OS for which there are no PWA hooks (and it would basically be reimplementing the entire OS in the browser to add them all). They want the experience on their devices to be the full experience, not the limited web experience you get with PWAs.
- coder543 6y ago
  A web app added to your home screen affects privacy much less than a native app, since it is even more sandboxed and restricted, and it even affects battery life less in some areas due to these restrictions. Native apps can schedule background tasks, among other things that would impact your battery life and privacy. So... disagree entirely. Please provide concrete examples of how a native app is less capable of invading your privacy than a web app that has been added to your home screen. (Please keep in mind that home screen PWAs don't even have the same level of access to your Safari sessions that random websites have, which is why you have to log into PWAs a second time, even if you are already logged in using Safari.)

rickyc091 6y ago

A Plus plan is currently $5/mo through their web. If you purchase an annual plan it's $4/mo ($48). From what I can see, you can only purchase an annual plan on iOS for $60/mo. They also have fine print that states that Apple takes a 30% fee.

pier25 6y ago

The walled garden could have worked if Apple had acted as a benevolent dictator. Instead, it degraded into a despot and it will face the consequences of this.

ramenandtrance 6y ago

I think this is what happens when we have a "feudal system". People have given over control to a few feudal lords. We increasingly don't control our infrastructure or data. We are seeing the consolidation of power into the hands of a few powerful organizations. Once you get locked into your walled in garden, it's difficult to leave, be this for developers or end users, and these organizations know it.

intricatedetail 6y ago
The last element is cashless society. They'll be able to delete your means to survive if you don't obey the t&c.

rgbrenner 6y ago

In August Wordpress complained about the same thing... and Apple apologized and changed the policy: https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/22/21397424/apple-wordpress-apology-iap-free-ios-app https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/22/21397424/apple-wordpress-... Protonmail brings up a 2018 incident that has already been addressed by the new policy. What point does this article serve? I think it's just free and easy publicity for ProtonMail. If they had spoken up earlier, maybe they could have been the reason for change instead of WordPress.

viktorcode 6y ago
That is an incorrect conclusion. Apple apologised that the language of App Store guidelines wasn’t clear enough. The policy in question hasn’t been changed. The changes to App Store guidelines were announced in June, before the situation with Wordpress. Those changes were published in August. Wordpress changed their app to follow the policy by removing the mention of their premium service. Sadly, the Verge doesn’t make any of it clear.
pier25 6y ago
> maybe they could have been the reason for change instead of WordPress I seriously doubt Apple would have listened to ProtonMail. Look what happened to HEY.

diegorbaquero 6y ago

I am sure if Apple dropped the percentage to single-digit, no developer would argue the value that IAP provide, the problem has always been the exorbitant 30%.