apple responds to hey controversy by insulting free app developers

[spartaman64]

Quote

Apple doubled-down on its response to the Hey email app controversy. Apple SVP Phil Schiller responded by saying that the company isn’t going to change its mind, or its policies.

The specific controversy here is on Apple’s attitude to apps that require subscriptions in order to work. Some companies are allowed to have apps that don’t offer in-app purchases as a subscription option, while others aren’t. For example, Netflix is allowed, while Hey isn’t.

Schiller acknowledged that the company makes exceptions for certain categories of what it refers to as ‘reader’ apps, but says that email isn’t one of these.

Quote

There are two problems here. First, the list of which categories are and aren’t permitted seems arbitrary.

Magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VOIP, cloud storage, or approved services such as classroom management apps.

Indeed, a cynic might suggest the only reason these exceptions exist is because they cover extremely popular apps from companies that have as much clout as Apple.

Quote

But the bigger problem is that the App Store Review Board led by Schiller yesterday said:

We understand that Basecamp has developed a number of apps and many subsequent versions for the App Store for many years, and that the App Store has distributed millions of these apps to iOS users. These apps do not offer in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years. We are happy to continue to support you in your app business and offer you the solutions to provide your services for free — so long as you follow and respect the same App Store Review Guidelines and terms that all developers must follow.

The tone of this message is … unfortunate.

In the best of interpretations, it comes across as churlish. ‘Hey, you’re a freeloader that we kindly allow into our App Store despite the fact that you don’t make any money for us – be grateful.’

In the worst of interpretations, it seems vaguely threatening. ‘Nice Basecamp app you have in our App Store – be a shame if anything happened to it.’ And I’m not the only one to have voiced this exact view.

Quote

So, just a few days before heading into WWDC, Apple chooses to effectively tell developers of free apps that they contribute nothing to Apple. That if Apple graciously chooses to let them into its App Store, they should appreciate that fact, and keep any complaints to themselves.

source: https://9to5mac.com/2020/06/19/heading-into-wwdc-by-insulting-developers/

 

The arrogance in that statement is sickening. The free apps add value to the iphone as if you removed all free apps from the app store much less people will buy iphones. Also this wouldn't be as much of a problem if there was a way to sideload apps or companies are allowed to develop their own app stores for iphones but since the apple app store is the only way to get an app without doing something like jailbreaking which apple would not recommend then they have a duty to have more fair terms or face antitrust.

[wANKER]

I'm sorry but Apple have insulted absolutely fookin' nobody here. 

 

Quote

"‘Nice Basecamp app you have in our App Store – be a shame if anything happened to it.’ "

Quote

"so long as you follow and respect the same App Store Review Guidelines and terms that all developers must follow."

 

Absolutely correct they're threatening them. They're threatening them on the basis that if they don't follow their guidelines, they will be removed. As any other company does.

 

Nor are Apple saying free developers contribute nothing. 

Quote

"have not contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years"

 

Quote

this wouldn't be as much of a problem if there was a way to sideload apps or companies are allowed to develop their own app stores 

So basically what you're saying is Apple should open up iOS to allow anything to be sideloaded onto a device and publishers should be allowed to create their own app store and publish un-reviewed apps/whatever the hell they like? 

Yeh no. 

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, wANKER said:

I'm sorry but Apple have insulted absolutely fookin' nobody here. 

 

"‘Nice Basecamp app you have in our App Store – be a shame if anything happened to it.’ "

"so long as you follow and respect the same App Store Review Guidelines and terms that all developers must follow."

 

Absolutely correct they're threatening them. They're threatening them on the basis that if they don't follow their guidelines, they will be removed. As any other company does.

 

Nor are Apple saying free developers contribute nothing. 

"have not contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years"

theres no other way to interpret "the App Store has distributed millions of these apps to iOS users. These apps do not offer in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years" except we are doing you a favor for nothing so you should feel grateful. which is completely false since they add value to the iphone itself

[ARikozuM]

Either everyone plays by the same rules or by none of the rules. You can't play exceptions to these things. Hey should just set a $0.01 purchase and then refund it within their own app upon subscribing. Just stick it to Apple for monopolizing the market. 

[Suika]

If the goal was to convince US and EU lawmakers that you are not, in fact, running a software monopoly in a similarly aggressive fashion if not more so than Microsoft did in the past, this was not the statement to release.

[Trik'Stari]

Oh look, I can side load an app to use adblock for Youtube on my Samsung S8, for free. It's worked flawlessly.

 

Get with the times Apple.

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, wANKER said:

So basically what you're saying is Apple should open up iOS to allow anything to be sideloaded onto a device and publishers should be allowed to create their own app store

They can also develop in-house 100% of the app store, so they can boast about those thousands of apps available in their "ecosystem" without, you know, free-riding all those free-riders.

 

Quote

and publish un-reviewed apps/whatever the hell they like? 

I don't see why a non-Apple software repository would be "un-reviewed". Would you say F-droid is un-reviewed?

 

Btw, I don't know if you ever heard of this device called the "PC", you'd be surprised by how far "side-loading" and "bring your own repository" can take you...

[ARikozuM]

4 minutes ago, SpaceGhostC2C said:

Btw, I don't know if you ever heard of this device called the "PC", you'd be surprised by how far "side-loading" and "bring your own repository" can take you...

We don't talk about Linux on these forums. 

Spoiler

/s

 

[That Franc]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

Oh look, I can side load an app to use adblock for Youtube on my Samsung S8, for free. It's worked flawlessly.

 

Get with the times Apple.

Oh look, I unlocked a bootloader on my Pixel and Google didn't send an assassin to my house.

 

Get with the times Samsung

[Curious Pineapple]

8 minutes ago, That Franc said:

Oh look, I unlocked a bootloader on my Pixel and Google didn't send an assassin to my house.

 

Get with the times Samsung

My note 9 has a bootloader unlock in the developer options.

[AlTech]

3 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Either everyone plays by the same rules or by none of the rules. You can't play exceptions to these things.

Yup. EU's gonna have a field day with this,

3 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Hey should just set a $0.01 purchase and then refund it within their own app upon subscribing. Just stick it to Apple for monopolizing the market. 

Unfortunatelty that's not quite how it works. Prices have to be picked from price brackets already pre-determined.

 

The cheapest price option is $0.49

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, wANKER said:

So basically what you're saying is Apple should open up iOS to allow anything to be sideloaded onto a device and publishers should be allowed to create their own app store and publish un-reviewed apps/whatever the hell they like? 

Yeh no. 

Just putting the issue of restrictive practices (price fixing and cartel as they apply the rules to some and not others).

 

The iphone (like all phones and tablets) is a modern necessity in many ways, it is a Personal Computational device that was bought by the owner and is now their property,  just like a PC, or android device.  Being forced to use it only one specific way as dictated by the maker (which includes making programs for it) is a selfish anti consumer practice.

 

Whatever rules you apply to windows, android, Linux, mac or any other device/industry you must also apply to the iphone.  If you don't believe MS should also decide who gets to write apps for windows and that they must be sold through the MS store only then you don't get to argue this for a phone.

[That Franc]

18 minutes ago, Curious Pineapple said:

My note 9 has a bootloader unlock in the developer options.

Mine didn't have it because I didn't have a German SIM in a German phone, so I had to reinstall the OS using a version that matched the country of the sim card (that came with bloatware), wait 167 hours without reboots for that option to appear, and only then did it let me unlock it.

 

It's only a tiny fraction of gripes that I have with Samsung, if you properly get me started on that, I can talk about it for hours. Samsung, especially after Motorola and OnePlus, just wasn't a great experience for me. Too many poor attempts at their own closed software ecosystem, too little regard for what the user actually wants.

[Guest]

It’s probably because the subscription option has always been separate and there’s not much Apple can do about it, if it’s a big company. 
 

When you sign up outside of Apple, it wouldn’t go through apple’s system at all. 
 

IMO it’s not really threatening at all. You’d expect every app to follow the App Store’s rules and regulations to be published - which contradictory to the article, you pay Apple for. You own the device, but you don’t own the App Store. I think the line between ownership is getting blurred. You could argue you own an app you bought on your phone, but you can’t argue you own a web app. 
 

Really though, it’s just a response from admin. I don’t know what a small company like Hey can expect. Apple probably just don’t care.

[spartaman64]

2 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

It’s probably because the subscription option has always been separate and there’s not much Apple can do about it, if it’s a big company. 
 

When you sign up outside of Apple, it wouldn’t go through apple’s system at all. 
 

IMO it’s not really threatening at all. You’d expect every app to follow the App Store’s rules and regulations to be published - which contradictory to the article, you pay Apple for. You own the device, but you don’t own the App Store. I think the line between ownership is getting blurred. You could argue you own an app you bought on your phone, but you can’t argue you own a web app. 
 

Really though, it’s just a response from admin. I don’t know what a small company like Hey can expect. Apple probably just don’t care.

like i said if you can get apps another way like on android this wouldnt be a problem but since the app store is the only way to get apps on an iphone this is just anticonsumer and anticompetitive 

[Trik'Stari]

33 minutes ago, That Franc said:

Oh look, I unlocked a bootloader on my Pixel and Google didn't send an assassin to my house.

 

Get with the times Samsung

More effort than I'm prepared to make lol.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

You own the device, but you don’t own the App Store. I think the line between ownership is getting blurred. You could argue you own an app you bought on your phone, but you can’t argue you own a web app. 

 

 

If I can't install whatever app I want without apples blessing then I don;t own the device.  The solution is simple, apple either allow companies to side load or they allow companies to have in app purchase and service not got through the app store.

 

So as I said earlier, unless you are willing to argue for MS to only allow MS store apps to be installed in windows then you can't argue for this on any other privately owned device.

[TomvanWijnen]

4 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

(from quote) ""These apps do not offer in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years.""

The funny thing is that this is wrong as well. It costs $99 per year to even be able to upload apps to the app store, so over 8 years they have contributed a revenue of at least $792.

[Kisai]

4 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Either everyone plays by the same rules or by none of the rules. You can't play exceptions to these things. Hey should just set a $0.01 purchase and then refund it within their own app upon subscribing. Just stick it to Apple for monopolizing the market. 

Their store, their rules. Don't like it, there's the door.

 

There is a stubborn level of arrogance from people who seem to think that a mobile phone should be as open as a PC, when the entire purpose of such app store walled gardens is for Apple to have control over the experience.

 

Start allowing side-loading, and you open up a huge pile of support issues from side-loaded software overwriting parts of the OS. Anyone who has ever used any desktop, laptop or server computer in any capacity has encountered this, and third party "package managers" love to stomp all over the OS like they own the place. One OS should designate one store/package management system and anything else that installs software on the OS should play by the OS's rules and be sandboxed so they depend on no third party libraries to be provided by the OS so it has no access to anything on the device without sharing a key between related software (eg Part 1 and Part 2 of a game, Microsoft Word and Excel)

 

[ARikozuM]

12 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Their store, their rules. Don't like it, there's the door.

 

There is a stubborn level of arrogance from people who seem to think that a mobile phone should be as open as a PC, when the entire purpose of such app store walled gardens is for Apple to have control over the experience.

 

Start allowing side-loading, and you open up a huge pile of support issues from side-loaded software overwriting parts of the OS. Anyone who has ever used any desktop, laptop or server computer in any capacity has encountered this, and third party "package managers" love to stomp all over the OS like they own the place. One OS should designate one store/package management system and anything else that installs software on the OS should play by the OS's rules and be sandboxed so they depend on no third party libraries to be provided by the OS so it has no access to anything on the device without sharing a key between related software (eg Part 1 and Part 2 of a game, Microsoft Word and Excel)

 

They've apparently let others do exactly what Hey is trying to fight. If you're going to set a rule, set a rule and apply that rule. Don't give special conditions to Microsoft and others. If they leave and cause damage to Apple, so be it since it's Apple's rule. 

 

Side-loading is an issue, but should not be a nail upon the cross. Why should I give a portion of my money to Apple for Crunchyroll when I can simply give all of the money to CR? Same thing here. Either everything is through Apple or nothing is. If you're paying for app hosting, you're not entitled to any of the profits from that app. If you're hosting payment processing, you should get a cut of those based on market value. But if Hey is using another merchant/payment processing, it's their money, not Apple's. 

[Bombastinator]

“Insults” seems strong to me.  It’s in the grand tradition of editorial headlines in the tech news section though.  I don’t know what “Hey!” Makes.  There seems to be a lot of dust kicked up over this one but I’m not sure how big the fight actually is.  There are better arguments having to do with other Apple behaviors than this one imho.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

If I can't install whatever app I want without apples blessing then I don;t own the device.  The solution is simple, apple either allow companies to side load or they allow companies to have in app purchase and service not got through the app store.

 

So as I said earlier, unless you are willing to argue for MS to only allow MS store apps to be installed in windows then you can't argue for this on any other privately owned device.

Tbh I don’t think we can pretend Apple isnt above politics regarding this. 

[Kisai]

11 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

“Insults” seems strong to me.  It’s in the grand tradition of editorial headlines in the tech news section though.  I don’t know what “Hey!” Makes.  There seems to be a lot of dust kicked up over this one but I’m not sure how big the fight actually is.  There are better arguments having to do with other Apple behaviors than this one imho.

"Hey" makes a paid email client that is sandboxed from the rest of the device. To over-simplify it.

 

That makes it not very far removed from the gmail or outlook "free" apps. Both which are attached to subscription services that you can setup through the web browser itself.

 

The boneheaded argument here is an app developer is stomping their feet and hoping that it gets them sympathy from some other source to put pressure on apple to let them do what they want.

 

Again. Apple's store. Apple's Rules. Apple can throw anyone out of it's store, for any reason it wants. Apple wants specific kinds of software to work consistently across the device, and that's just "too much effort" for some developers. 

 

If you bought an Apple device, you are subject to it's rules for services too, which if you don't want to pay for the services, you are not obligated to (despite being nagged every few days about iCloud of out of space.) under previous versions of iOS. Apple does not block Dropbox, Google Drive or MS OneDrive. Apple doesn't block Netflix or Amazon from it's Apple TV app. In fact if you click on AppleTV it will even tell you which service you have to subscribe to use it (eg Clicking "The Simpsons" will bring up Apple and Disney+)

 

If you want to people to impulse buy/subscribe, it's in your best interests to allow them to use Apple Pay on an Apple device, otherwise don't complain about it, and put the signup on your website, that way Apple doesn't have to take the risk itself.

 

[Salv8 (sam)]

5 hours ago, spartaman64 said:

The arrogance in that statement is sickening.

apple and arogant are always in the same sentence, it's a universal constant. like gravity.

[Arika]

14 minutes ago, Kisai said:

Again. Apple's store. Apple's Rules.

Sure, but when the apple store is the ONLY store, then this argument falls apart.