4 ms·

Taking Apple to Court: Their mistake wiped out our $33,680 MRR mobile business

57 points by oidar 2y ago

hiatus 2y ago
Some more background: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38394364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38394364
exabrial 2y ago
Honestly I'm a bit triggered by anyone using MRR as a KPI. But I do feel sorry for these guys and I hope for a good outcome.
- verelo 2y ago
  I am pretty taken back by this remark. In terms of measuring impact to someone’s life and surviving the startup grind, MRR is probably very relevant at both measuring progress and the financial viability of your efforts. Can you elaborate on what I’m missing?
- SkyPuncher 2y ago
  It’s basically the only thing that matters at this scale.
LorenDB 2y ago
https://mrmr.io/apple https://mrmr.io/apple seems to be relevant here.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
duxup 2y ago
The Softeam situation is confusing to me. They worked for / with Softeam, left, and then did their own thing and called it Softeam. Then the original Softeam got in trouble and so did they. Did I get that right?
- giancarlostoro 2y ago
  Softeam wasn't the beauty company. Softeam was something else, for something unrelated to photo / video apps. Sounds like maybe their card game matched an existing one in the market, and Apple, as always, did terrible communication over the matter. In Apples war to keep the app store from too much redundancy, they're essentially losing out on income by banning perfectly profitable and okay apps.
LeoPanthera 2y ago
3.99 a week charged monthly. For a simple "collage maker". Fake reviews. Immediately asks for a 5-star review when you open the app. And a simple utility that concatenates videos for $20/month? Apps like this are why I approve of Apple's app store moderation, even if they do occasionally make mistakes. This was not one of them. These apps were predatory. Immediately opening a second account when the first one was banned, before they had appealed, is also extremely suspicious behavior.
- toxik 2y ago
  Total sob story. Why is this even on here?
- etchalon 2y ago
  If I reviewed this decision, based on everything presented, I'd probably deny the appeal too.
  - duxup 2y ago
    Agreed, the only indication that they're not the same developers that Apple seems to think they are is that they say so. They even used the same name, clearly at one point were associated with each other.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > And a simple utility that concatenates videos for $20/month? Maybe it does more than that? Why would anybody voluntarily pay a subscription for something that isn't worth the money? > Immediately opening a second account when the first one was banned, before they had appealed, is also extremely suspicious behavior. That is the most human behavior imaginable. Something bad happens to you, it's now an emergency, so you try every avenue to address it simultaneously.
  - duxup 2y ago
    Of course people pay for things that aren't worth the money?
camilamacedo 2y ago
[dead]
cadenhooks274 2y ago
[flagged]

57 points by oidar 2y ago

Some more background: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38394364 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38394364

Honestly I'm a bit triggered by anyone using MRR as a KPI. But I do feel sorry for these guys and I hope for a good outcome.

verelo 2y ago
I am pretty taken back by this remark. In terms of measuring impact to someone’s life and surviving the startup grind, MRR is probably very relevant at both measuring progress and the financial viability of your efforts. Can you elaborate on what I’m missing?
SkyPuncher 2y ago
It’s basically the only thing that matters at this scale.

LorenDB 2y ago

https://mrmr.io/apple https://mrmr.io/apple seems to be relevant here.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

duxup 2y ago

The Softeam situation is confusing to me. They worked for / with Softeam, left, and then did their own thing and called it Softeam. Then the original Softeam got in trouble and so did they. Did I get that right?

giancarlostoro 2y ago
Softeam wasn't the beauty company. Softeam was something else, for something unrelated to photo / video apps. Sounds like maybe their card game matched an existing one in the market, and Apple, as always, did terrible communication over the matter. In Apples war to keep the app store from too much redundancy, they're essentially losing out on income by banning perfectly profitable and okay apps.

LeoPanthera 2y ago

3.99 a week charged monthly. For a simple "collage maker". Fake reviews. Immediately asks for a 5-star review when you open the app. And a simple utility that concatenates videos for $20/month? Apps like this are why I approve of Apple's app store moderation, even if they do occasionally make mistakes. This was not one of them. These apps were predatory. Immediately opening a second account when the first one was banned, before they had appealed, is also extremely suspicious behavior.

toxik 2y ago
Total sob story. Why is this even on here?
etchalon 2y ago
If I reviewed this decision, based on everything presented, I'd probably deny the appeal too.
- duxup 2y ago
  Agreed, the only indication that they're not the same developers that Apple seems to think they are is that they say so. They even used the same name, clearly at one point were associated with each other.
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> And a simple utility that concatenates videos for $20/month? Maybe it does more than that? Why would anybody voluntarily pay a subscription for something that isn't worth the money? > Immediately opening a second account when the first one was banned, before they had appealed, is also extremely suspicious behavior. That is the most human behavior imaginable. Something bad happens to you, it's now an emergency, so you try every avenue to address it simultaneously.
- duxup 2y ago
  Of course people pay for things that aren't worth the money?

camilamacedo 2y ago

[dead]

cadenhooks274 2y ago

[flagged]