Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 338 posts

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#201

Post by donmcronald »

scarface74 wrote: post #195
donmcronald wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those places are handling physical goods and they have a lot of real costs associated with their services. That's not the same as Apple taking 15-30% of revenue for a subscription where the developer is running the entire backend and all Apple does is host a few install / update files. There's no developer on the planet that would agree to that deal if Apple couldn't use the customers from their phone business as lev…

You mean like developers didn’t agree to give retailers 60% of their revenue when they were selling physical discs? Why do developers overwhelmingly give Google 30% of their revenue when Android users can sideload? Should we also complain about the much larger margins that Amazon charges independent authors for Kindle? The amount Google charges for ads?

Sideloading on Android is a PITA by default, but it's enough of a backstop that some developers like Tinder and Epic have been able to give Google the middle finger.

There are cases where 30% of revenue makes sense. For cheap, purchased apps it's a good deal because the cost of running that infrastructure is comparatively high. However, once you hit a certain volume of sales or move into subscriptions, the value of the services being provided by Google and Apple don't make sense and it would be better to run your own infrastructure.

Seeing what Epic was willing to do to get out of the Play store is a really good indicator of how bad of a deal it is at scale.

And I thought traditional retailers chose their own markup, didn't they?

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#202

Post by donmcronald »

scarface74 wrote: post #168
realtalk_sp wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're describing stores that exist in a competitive ecosystem with price variation. The analogy breaks down because "buyers of products" doesn't map one-to-one with "owners of iPhones" and because distribution of physical goods actually has significant costs. Assuming you are in fact in the tech industry, you should know that near-zero marginal distribution cost is one of the core principles underpinning software ec…

Let’s talk about console makers then..... How many stores actually “transparently” tell you their markup?

Tim Sweeny [1]:

> “There’s a rationale for this on console where there’s enormous investment in hardware, often sold below cost, and marketing campaigns in broad partnership with publishers.”

I guess it really just comes down to console makers acting like a partner whereas Apple acts more like a mobster running a protection racket.

1) https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/3/17645982/epic-games-fortni...

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#203

Post by scarface74 »

donmcronald wrote: post #201
scarface74 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean like developers didn’t agree to give retailers 60% of their revenue when they were selling physical discs? Why do developers overwhelmingly give Google 30% of their revenue when Android users can sideload? Should we also complain about the much larger margins that Amazon charges independent authors for Kindle? The amount Google charges for ads?

Sideloading on Android is a PITA by default, but it's enough of a backstop that some developers like Tinder and Epic have been able to give Google the middle finger. There are cases where 30% of revenue makes sense. For cheap, purchased apps it's a good deal because the cost of running that infrastructure is comparatively high. However, once you hit a certain volume of sales or move into subscriptions, the value of t…

And as far as Epic, sloppiness by third party developers is a great reason for the App Store.

https://www.cnet.com/news/just-as-critics-feared-fortnite-fo...

Edit:

Most retailers do choose their own markup. Ironically, Apple got sued for working with book publishers where the book publishers set the price and Apple chose the markup.

However, the book publishers wanted this arrangement because Amazon was selling ebooks at a loss devaluing the hardcover and paperback books.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#204

Post by donmcronald »

scarface74 wrote: post #198
donmcronald wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to know a lot about it. How do the fees / costs work in the console market?

Microsoft charges 30% for Xbox games. The link also mentions Windows store fees that are a lot cheaper. https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/06/microsoft-store-revenue-share... As far as physical stores, the publisher gets $27 out of the $60 for a typical game. The console maker gets $7 out of the $60. I’ve seen this sane chart other places. https://www.quora.com/How-much-do-game-companies-make-from-e...

If MS charges 30% for doing almost nothing but putting an XBox game in the store, that's also a scam. I don't know enough about it to know if they provide other services like matchmaking, etc. for that.

The rest of those seem reasonable to me.

The publisher is basically your marketing budget, right?

Retailers' shelf space has a cost and is limited physically. They could be using the same space to sell literally anything, so I think whatever the price of that ends up being it's probably a result of competition across a ton of industries.

The licensing fee is ok too IMO since the console makers take a huge risk producing and selling the consoles as cheaply as possible. It also sounds like a well known, flat fee, not a cut of ongoing revenue.

The problem for me is when digital stores with a tiny marginal cost of distribution think it's reasonable for them to capture a huge portion of lifetime revenue. They're not doing that much. It's bad value and the only reason they can make it work is because they're in a position that lets them act like an extortionist.

It's the cut of every single transaction for the lifetime of a customer that people think is unfair. Ex: $27 to a publisher is fine if it's a one time fee and they're providing $27 of value by advertising etc.. They could never ask for 40% of revenue for all future transactions like DLC and microtransactions because there's enough competition that no one would use them and they'd go out of business.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#205

Post by e_y_ »

chedabob wrote: post #103
nkcmr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By itself, this argument makes sense. But the problem is how wildly unevenly it is applied. If you're "big enough" you get a pass. Also, they got their first version through without any issues or a peep about this rule. And only when they needed to push a codefix is when they got held up. If you're going to have rules, they MUST be applied evenly.

> problem is how wildly unevenly it is applied This is one of my biggest frustrations with App Review. It's easy to convince clients to budget for a few days exploratory work that might be rejected, but they're less inclined to do so with the possibility of an approval not being permanent, and then having to sink a lot more money into reworking that functionality at an indeterminate point in the future. Sometimes you…

One time, we had an update rejected for having the word "Android" in the app.

While technically mentioning "other mobile platforms" is prohibited in the review guidelines, in this case it was in user-submitted content that you could only find through search.

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#2.3...

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#206

Post by donmcronald »

nrmitchi wrote: post #142
paxys wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a suggestion on how to update their app to comply with the policy - basically offer a free version that's just like any other email app.

I would personally love to see Hey come back with a free Apple version of their service which gives the user a hilariously long @hey.com email address and lets them use it.

Yeah, like the digital equivalent of work to rule. 1MB storage, no attachments, forced signature, etc.. It would be hilarious to see Apple respond to that because it's still more ethical than all the trial subscription scams they allow on the app store.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#207

Post by kinjba11 »

scarface74 wrote: post #199
jollins wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A video game console isn't used for programming, video production, writing, homework, etc. You know what I mean. The fact that they are specially packaged PC parts is beside the point. You keep bringing up video game distribution though, so let's roll with it. Pretend all of software was like video game distribution. How much worse would software be for users? Imagine FOSS on that.

And a phone isn’t “specially packaged” and is used for “video production, writing and homework”? Software would be better for the average user if PCs (and Macs) had tighter permission models - no viruses, spyware, adware, ransomware, surreptitiously reading your contacts without your permission, etc.

I think most can agree the OS should sandbox apps appropriately, and allow access via permissions and such. But like most things, it can be taken too far. The fact is you can't buy a console or iPhone of the shelf and easily (or legally) run your software on it without special permission from Apple or Sony etc.

The distinction is video game consoles are not general purpose. Just like nobody is going to write an essay on an Pinball machine, nobody will (ordinarily) do so on a console. If a game developer need to follow special rules to get into the console market, that's par for the course.

In contrast, on Windows/Linux/Mac/Android I can run whatever software I damn well like without talking to Microsoft/Canonical/Google/etc. It is truly 'general purpose'. There is no required gatekeeper for these systems (as much as they are try to make themselves one). iOS stands in contrast to these - it is not 'general purpose' if I can't run whatever. If Apple decides some software is not allowed on the store that is not 'general purpose'. That is something else - gatekeeping. So when they advertise 'general purpose' that is only true until they decide they don't like something. And they can change their rules anytime they want.

To the 30% thing, every retail store has markups they don't advertise and that's perfectly fine. If Apple or a retailer wants to charge me for access to their store, I'm happy to pay.

But when they force a change to a product and company in arbitrary ways to suite their whims that's pretty concerning because it's a sign they are abusing their power in a very historically been-done-before way. Think about it - 50-100% of a target market is controlled by them. You can do whatever you want - why not charge 50%? 70%? There is no competition - it's literally whatever the highest is you think your PR department can get away with. Not sure how you feel about anti-trust, but sure feels like abuse to me.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#208

Post by scarface74 »

donmcronald wrote: post #204
scarface74 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft charges 30% for Xbox games. The link also mentions Windows store fees that are a lot cheaper. https://9to5mac.com/2019/03/06/microsoft-store-revenue-share... As far as physical stores, the publisher gets $27 out of the $60 for a typical game. The console maker gets $7 out of the $60. I’ve seen this sane chart other places. https://www.quora.com/How-much-do-game-companies-make-from-e...

If MS charges 30% for doing almost nothing but putting an XBox game in the store, that's also a scam. I don't know enough about it to know if they provide other services like matchmaking, etc. for that. The rest of those seem reasonable to me. The publisher is basically your marketing budget, right? Retailers' shelf space has a cost and is limited physically. They could be using the same space to sell literally anyth…

Do you feel SASS companies are also unethical because the marginal cost of a customer is 0?

And then the publishers also have to pay MS for DLC. I think MS still charges for delivering patches through MS Live. They might have dropped it.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#209

Post by mustardo »

subdane wrote: post #123

Apple has an abusive relationship with developers. I bet this harkens back to Jobs being pissed about jailbreaking and having to open up the platform. I think the culture still reflects that basic misunderstanding at the company. It's ironic, because it's the apps and developers that made the iPhone what it is - case in point, "There's an app for that," which they actually went and trademarked. https://www.cnn.com/20…

Agree it seems short sighted of Apple to me

Windows Phone largely failed because developers had abandoned the platform and "There is no app developed for that" ended up being common

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#210

Post by scarface74 »

kinjba11 wrote: post #207
scarface74 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a phone isn’t “specially packaged” and is used for “video production, writing and homework”? Software would be better for the average user if PCs (and Macs) had tighter permission models - no viruses, spyware, adware, ransomware, surreptitiously reading your contacts without your permission, etc.

I think most can agree the OS should sandbox apps appropriately, and allow access via permissions and such. But like most things, it can be taken too far. The fact is you can't buy a console or iPhone of the shelf and easily (or legally) run your software on it without special permission from Apple or Sony etc. The distinction is video game consoles are not general purpose. Just like nobody is going to write an essay…

But when they force a change to a product and company in arbitrary ways to suite their whims that's pretty concerning because it's a sign they are abusing their power in a very historically been-done-before way.

You mean how Walmart forced the music industry to edit CDs or they wouldn’t sell them or how they force manufacturers to sell crappier versions of their products to meet a price point?

Or do you mean again how Nintendo is infamous about the strict content controls they have on games and have since the 16 bit days and no blood in Mortal Kombat?

Also, see how movie theater chains are saying that they won’t show studio’s movies if they start releasing straight to consumers now even though most movie theaters are closed?

We could also mention GameStop threatening not to sell MS consoles this generation because of their original intention to make games harder to resell.

Post reply on HN