6 ms·

The thing about the App Store is that it allows small developers to reach huge audiences without a lot of logistical headaches. Little things to brick and morta

The thing about the App Store is that it allows small developers to reach huge audiences without a lot of logistical headaches. Little things to brick and mortar stores, like charging the right amount of tax to a customer, are huge problems on the web when you're trying to reach customers across the world. On the other hand, there are definite risks associated with using the App Store and this is one of them. You're absolutely right that people will abandon the App Store for greener pastures. Let's just wait to see where those greener pastures are. Also, as you said, nothing has changed. Developers trying to make money are businesses first and foremost. They should leave their fanboy-ism at home when they set up shop. The people that are complaining the most about getting screwed by the App Store, as jws points out in another comment in this thread, are the ones that probably didn't even bother reading the contract between Apple and them, let alone getting a lawyer to give them specific legal advice about it for them. I know that the barrier of entry for starting a business is quite low these days, but that doesn't mean that standards for professionalism should drop correspondingly. Part of being a professional is understanding what your obligations are. These obligations are outlined in contracts. Contracts are the emergency manuals that get pulled out in case something goes wrong. They dictate what you agreed to do in those situations. You wouldn't haphazardly sign an emergency evacuation plan. You'd probably read it over and try to understand if it all made sense. Treat your contracts the same way. They're all about corner cases, so they're a big deal.

TomOfTTB 17y ago
The problem here is that you're confusing "legally wrong" with "morally wrong". I don't think anyone here is questioning the fact that Apple has completely covered their ass with the developer agreement. In fact they’ve essentially made it so they can do just about anything with impunity. But that doesn’t make it right or fair. I’m not one of those “everything should be open” types but Apple should at least be required to publicly spell out its terms. In the example given in the article a developer had their app approved and it was actually in the store for months. Apple then pulled it months later and refused to even give the reason why (which in turn prevented the developer from remedying the situation). Then turned around and said the developer was responsible for dealing with the disgruntled customers even if it meant refunding their money (which they'd have to do since they had no way to remedy the situation). Further I'd suggest these discussions have a precedent in our society. Society recognizes the fact that some things are simply too morally wrong to be allowed. Even by contract. If I sign a contract saying I allow you to do anything you want to me you still can't beat me to death with a baseball bat. Though this is obviously not in the same realm of heinousness as that the precedent is the same. You can't legally indemnify yourself against that which society won't tolerate.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- 9oliYQjP 17y ago
  Well we're at risk of defining what is right or fair. I loved my first year philosophy course just as much as the other guy but that's a damn slippery slope to go down :) I will say one thing on this matter though. Companies are amoral. The App Store may prove to be unpalatable, but don't think that some other company is more moral than another because when it comes down to it, morals are irrelevant to companies. It's why I believe in a strong regulatory government to keep companies in check, but again I'm at risk of getting this thread off on a tangent :) Additionally, Apple has always remained consistent on their position on both revocation and refunds. It is public in that developers are told about this and must agree to the terms before joining. That's about as public as is necessary in my books. So this should not be news to the developer. Let me bring up the relevant parts of the contract. I've skipped most of the examples because the last one is so broad as to cover the rest. iPhone Developer Program License Agreement 8. Revocation You understand and agree that Apple may cease distribution of Your Licensed Application(s) and/or Licensed Application information or revoke the digital certificate of any of Your Applications at any time. By way of example only, Apple might choose to do this if at any time: . . . (l) Apple has reason to believe that such action is prudent or necessary. Also, Schedule 1, and 2 (which I believe is unique on a per-country basis) outlines the legal obligations for refunds. EXHIBIT A (to Schedule 1) 4. Warranty: You must be solely responsible for any product warranties, whether express or implied by law, to the extent not effectively disclaimed. The EULA must provide that, in the event of any failure of the Licensed Application to conform to any applicable warranty, the end-user may notify Apple, and Apple will refund the purchase price for the Licensed Application to that end-user: and that, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Apple will have no other warranty obligation whatsoever with respect to the Licensed Application, and any other claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs or expenses attributable to any failure to conform to any warranty will be Your sole responsibility.
  - TomOfTTB 17y ago
    You seem to be trying to have it both ways here. If you believe in a strong regulatory government than you believe companies do need to have some morality. Because the very intention of laws is to uphold the moral standard society has set. In other words a company should ideally not break the law meaning if you believe there should be strong regulations you in turn believe companies should have to operate within the bounds of some kind of moral standard. Moreover, I’m very libertarian leaning. I DON’T believe in a strong regulatory government. All I’m asking for is the most basic of protections. I don’t have a problem with Apple setting whatever terms they want but they have to (a) lay out the terms and (b) enforce them consistently. Also, on the warranty, I'd argue the quote you used doesn't apply to the situation in the article. The language specifically says... "The EULA must provide that, in the event of any failure of the Licensed Application to conform to any applicable warranty, the end-user may notify Apple, and Apple will refund the purchase price for the Licensed Application to that end-user" But this wasn't a "failure of the Licensed Application" in that the application continued to work fine and had met Apple's requirements to the best of the developers ability to do so. But again, the question is not “what is legal now” it’s “now that this new concept exists what should we as a society require of it”. That’s the discussion being had. Is what Apple’s doing right and should society allow it and if not what standards should be set so that our future isn’t bogged down by companies acting in the same way Apple does.

TomOfTTB 17y ago

The problem here is that you're confusing "legally wrong" with "morally wrong". I don't think anyone here is questioning the fact that Apple has completely covered their ass with the developer agreement. In fact they’ve essentially made it so they can do just about anything with impunity. But that doesn’t make it right or fair. I’m not one of those “everything should be open” types but Apple should at least be required to publicly spell out its terms. In the example given in the article a developer had their app approved and it was actually in the store for months. Apple then pulled it months later and refused to even give the reason why (which in turn prevented the developer from remedying the situation). Then turned around and said the developer was responsible for dealing with the disgruntled customers even if it meant refunding their money (which they'd have to do since they had no way to remedy the situation). Further I'd suggest these discussions have a precedent in our society. Society recognizes the fact that some things are simply too morally wrong to be allowed. Even by contract. If I sign a contract saying I allow you to do anything you want to me you still can't beat me to death with a baseball bat. Though this is obviously not in the same realm of heinousness as that the precedent is the same. You can't legally indemnify yourself against that which society won't tolerate.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
9oliYQjP 17y ago
Well we're at risk of defining what is right or fair. I loved my first year philosophy course just as much as the other guy but that's a damn slippery slope to go down :) I will say one thing on this matter though. Companies are amoral. The App Store may prove to be unpalatable, but don't think that some other company is more moral than another because when it comes down to it, morals are irrelevant to companies. It's why I believe in a strong regulatory government to keep companies in check, but again I'm at risk of getting this thread off on a tangent :) Additionally, Apple has always remained consistent on their position on both revocation and refunds. It is public in that developers are told about this and must agree to the terms before joining. That's about as public as is necessary in my books. So this should not be news to the developer. Let me bring up the relevant parts of the contract. I've skipped most of the examples because the last one is so broad as to cover the rest. iPhone Developer Program License Agreement 8. Revocation You understand and agree that Apple may cease distribution of Your Licensed Application(s) and/or Licensed Application information or revoke the digital certificate of any of Your Applications at any time. By way of example only, Apple might choose to do this if at any time: . . . (l) Apple has reason to believe that such action is prudent or necessary. Also, Schedule 1, and 2 (which I believe is unique on a per-country basis) outlines the legal obligations for refunds. EXHIBIT A (to Schedule 1) 4. Warranty: You must be solely responsible for any product warranties, whether express or implied by law, to the extent not effectively disclaimed. The EULA must provide that, in the event of any failure of the Licensed Application to conform to any applicable warranty, the end-user may notify Apple, and Apple will refund the purchase price for the Licensed Application to that end-user: and that, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Apple will have no other warranty obligation whatsoever with respect to the Licensed Application, and any other claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs or expenses attributable to any failure to conform to any warranty will be Your sole responsibility.
- TomOfTTB 17y ago
  You seem to be trying to have it both ways here. If you believe in a strong regulatory government than you believe companies do need to have some morality. Because the very intention of laws is to uphold the moral standard society has set. In other words a company should ideally not break the law meaning if you believe there should be strong regulations you in turn believe companies should have to operate within the bounds of some kind of moral standard. Moreover, I’m very libertarian leaning. I DON’T believe in a strong regulatory government. All I’m asking for is the most basic of protections. I don’t have a problem with Apple setting whatever terms they want but they have to (a) lay out the terms and (b) enforce them consistently. Also, on the warranty, I'd argue the quote you used doesn't apply to the situation in the article. The language specifically says... "The EULA must provide that, in the event of any failure of the Licensed Application to conform to any applicable warranty, the end-user may notify Apple, and Apple will refund the purchase price for the Licensed Application to that end-user" But this wasn't a "failure of the Licensed Application" in that the application continued to work fine and had met Apple's requirements to the best of the developers ability to do so. But again, the question is not “what is legal now” it’s “now that this new concept exists what should we as a society require of it”. That’s the discussion being had. Is what Apple’s doing right and should society allow it and if not what standards should be set so that our future isn’t bogged down by companies acting in the same way Apple does.