3 ms·

I don't understand... did anything even really change? Like, "more price points"... but that seems like a non-sequitur :/. A big change would be letting develop

by saurik 5y ago

I don't understand... did anything even really change? Like, "more price points"... but that seems like a non-sequitur :/. A big change would be letting developers make it clear to users how to use alternative payment options, but Apple's press release only says via e-mail... which I guess they insist wasn't allowed before?

gjsman-1000 5y ago
I don't think the list of price points was the problem as much as it would be nice to have versioned upgrades. (I.e. FileMaker 2, FileMaker 3, FileMaker 4, and so on under the same listing and with access to old versions). Or, you know, a lower developer cut. Or competitive app stores. I'm just in the same boat... how did you make that your issue worth agreeing over? That's something Apple might have fixed on a Friday afternoon.
- alanlammiman 5y ago
  I believe one of the arguments used in the suit was along the lines of "Apple, by making the minimum price (other than 'free') for apps and IAPs 99c, prevents us from charging, say, 37c and this harms consumers and is anticompetitive". I believe it was just to provide a clear, verifiable argument that customers were being charged more than they would be in a free market (whereas other things Apple does are infinitely more serious, but also harder to prove and quantify). I'd guess the agreement addresses that to be consistent, even though I don't think anybody truly cares about the granularity of the price tiers.
mortenjorck 5y ago
> A big change would be letting developers make it clear to users how to use alternative payment options, but Apple's press release only says via e-mail It really says something that "allowing" businesses to communicate certain information with their own customers via an independent channel was considered a concession in this settlement. I'm still wrapping my head around it.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  I think it's important to wait for the final language from the settlement. After all, the original PR Post from Apple doesn't actually mention the $100 million fund that Axios does.
  - saagarjha 5y ago
    It's mentioned: > Apple will also establish a fund to assist small US developers, particularly as the world continues to suffer from the effects of COVID-19. Eligible developers must have earned $1 million or less through the US storefront for all of their apps in every calendar year in which the developers had an account between June 4, 2015, and April 26, 2021 — encompassing 99 percent of developers in the US. Details will be available at a later date.
- cube00 5y ago
  They're not your customers, they're Apple's customers and they're granting you a limited audience with them as long as you follow the house rules. Of course if something goes wrong and the customer gets litigious they'll be your customer then.
- cgearhart 5y ago
  I can feel your frustration, but it also strikes me as tone-deaf to those very same customers. The most common kind of email I send these days—by orders of magnitude—is “unsubscribe”. I don’t want your emails unless I actively asked for them. (And, no, passively being opted in or being forced to opt in by a user agreement or whatever doesn’t count.) I would happily pay middle men a lot extra to get fewer unwanted emails, phone calls, or just generally more privacy. There was an article earlier today on HN about how user-hostile software has become, and I think that explains my problem. Until developers as a whole become not just less hostile, but actively prioritize my needs over their own, I don’t think I’ll change my mind. My real problem is that I don’t have any leverage as an individual customer against hostile developers. So I’m stuck paying mega corps like Apple or Google to be the middle man for me because they _can_ leverage my interests against developers. So I just don’t feel any sympathy when developers complain that they are having a hard time abusing me.
smoldesu 5y ago
> did anything even really change? Nope, that's the point of coming out in front like this and donating 100 million dollars towards keeping the status quo in place. To me, it reads as an insult to anyone who thinks their processes are democratic.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  Apple is willing to spend $100 million because their executives are in an echo chamber. There are investigations (and some proposed laws) in the US, EU, Australia, UK, South Korea, and others. If Apple were a regular business, it should be obvious at this point that losing the App Store is inevitable by now. A question of when, not if. And yet Apple thinks that maybe, just maybe, they can buy their way out and have a chance to keep the status quo still. I think it's way too late for that now. We just need to sit back and wait for the lawmakers to finish the job.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > it should be obvious at this point that losing the App Store is inevitable by now This is a radical reading of current facts. It is plausible. But we're very far from inevitability. If you aren't seeing the broad opposition to and limited, focussed support for opening up iOS to competing App Stores, you may be in an echo chamber.
jsnell 5y ago
> which I guess they insist wasn't allowed before? I think they'd actually claim that it was allowed before. The press release is after all saying that all that's happening is that they're clarifying the policy, not that they are changing it.
manmal 5y ago
I wonder if that means app developers can now send emails to freshly subscribed users (who are still in the trial period) to cancel their App Store subscription and instead subscribe via an alternative payment provider. Eg. customer could pay 10% less, developer gets up to 24% more, win-win. Maybe the developer could throw in some goodies, like auto-cancellation after the first year.

by saurik 5y ago

gjsman-1000 5y ago

I don't think the list of price points was the problem as much as it would be nice to have versioned upgrades. (I.e. FileMaker 2, FileMaker 3, FileMaker 4, and so on under the same listing and with access to old versions). Or, you know, a lower developer cut. Or competitive app stores. I'm just in the same boat... how did you make that your issue worth agreeing over? That's something Apple might have fixed on a Friday afternoon.

alanlammiman 5y ago
I believe one of the arguments used in the suit was along the lines of "Apple, by making the minimum price (other than 'free') for apps and IAPs 99c, prevents us from charging, say, 37c and this harms consumers and is anticompetitive". I believe it was just to provide a clear, verifiable argument that customers were being charged more than they would be in a free market (whereas other things Apple does are infinitely more serious, but also harder to prove and quantify). I'd guess the agreement addresses that to be consistent, even though I don't think anybody truly cares about the granularity of the price tiers.

mortenjorck 5y ago

> A big change would be letting developers make it clear to users how to use alternative payment options, but Apple's press release only says via e-mail It really says something that "allowing" businesses to communicate certain information with their own customers via an independent channel was considered a concession in this settlement. I'm still wrapping my head around it.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
I think it's important to wait for the final language from the settlement. After all, the original PR Post from Apple doesn't actually mention the $100 million fund that Axios does.
- saagarjha 5y ago
  It's mentioned: > Apple will also establish a fund to assist small US developers, particularly as the world continues to suffer from the effects of COVID-19. Eligible developers must have earned $1 million or less through the US storefront for all of their apps in every calendar year in which the developers had an account between June 4, 2015, and April 26, 2021 — encompassing 99 percent of developers in the US. Details will be available at a later date.
cube00 5y ago
They're not your customers, they're Apple's customers and they're granting you a limited audience with them as long as you follow the house rules. Of course if something goes wrong and the customer gets litigious they'll be your customer then.
cgearhart 5y ago
I can feel your frustration, but it also strikes me as tone-deaf to those very same customers. The most common kind of email I send these days—by orders of magnitude—is “unsubscribe”. I don’t want your emails unless I actively asked for them. (And, no, passively being opted in or being forced to opt in by a user agreement or whatever doesn’t count.) I would happily pay middle men a lot extra to get fewer unwanted emails, phone calls, or just generally more privacy. There was an article earlier today on HN about how user-hostile software has become, and I think that explains my problem. Until developers as a whole become not just less hostile, but actively prioritize my needs over their own, I don’t think I’ll change my mind. My real problem is that I don’t have any leverage as an individual customer against hostile developers. So I’m stuck paying mega corps like Apple or Google to be the middle man for me because they _can_ leverage my interests against developers. So I just don’t feel any sympathy when developers complain that they are having a hard time abusing me.

smoldesu 5y ago

> did anything even really change? Nope, that's the point of coming out in front like this and donating 100 million dollars towards keeping the status quo in place. To me, it reads as an insult to anyone who thinks their processes are democratic.

gjsman-1000 5y ago
Apple is willing to spend $100 million because their executives are in an echo chamber. There are investigations (and some proposed laws) in the US, EU, Australia, UK, South Korea, and others. If Apple were a regular business, it should be obvious at this point that losing the App Store is inevitable by now. A question of when, not if. And yet Apple thinks that maybe, just maybe, they can buy their way out and have a chance to keep the status quo still. I think it's way too late for that now. We just need to sit back and wait for the lawmakers to finish the job.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > it should be obvious at this point that losing the App Store is inevitable by now This is a radical reading of current facts. It is plausible. But we're very far from inevitability. If you aren't seeing the broad opposition to and limited, focussed support for opening up iOS to competing App Stores, you may be in an echo chamber.

jsnell 5y ago

> which I guess they insist wasn't allowed before? I think they'd actually claim that it was allowed before. The press release is after all saying that all that's happening is that they're clarifying the policy, not that they are changing it.

manmal 5y ago

I wonder if that means app developers can now send emails to freshly subscribed users (who are still in the trial period) to cancel their App Store subscription and instead subscribe via an alternative payment provider. Eg. customer could pay 10% less, developer gets up to 24% more, win-win. Maybe the developer could throw in some goodies, like auto-cancellation after the first year.