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

261–270 of 338 posts

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#261

Post by kelnos »

Despegar wrote: post #84
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.

How do you "get a pass if you're big enough"? If you're trying to use Netflix or Spotify as an example of big companies getting a pass then it'd have to only apply to them. But it doesn't. Smaller subscription video or music apps could use the same section in the App Review Guidelines for "Reader" apps to have an app without in-app purchases that you buy outside the App Store.

In what bizarro world is an email reader not allowed to use rules that apply to "reader apps"? Especially when things like video and music services, that involve no reading, can.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#262

Post by kelnos »

gruez wrote: post #67
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.

>But the problem is how wildly unevenly it is applied. If you're "big enough" you get a pass. >If you're going to have rules, they MUST be applied evenly. It's also possible that it is being applied evenly, it's just that the big guys negotiated private exemptions.

> It's also possible that it is being applied evenly, it's just that the big guys negotiated private exemptions.

... which means it's not being applied evenly.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#263

Post by epanchin »

ProAm wrote: post #152
epanchin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one is able to install software without going into the App Store, then one is also liable to be socially engineered into installing software from outside the App Store. No thanks. Keep iPhones in their walled gardens where they are safe. Androids exist for experimentation.

> No thanks. Keep iPhones in their walled gardens where they are safe. Androids exist for experimentation. That's fine too, don't strong arm me out of 30% while letting others get away with no paying that. Some people want a walled garden (you) and dont mind paying for it, others would like to install software of their choosing without letting Apple know what they install and by who.

If there’s an option to opt out of the walled garden, people will be fooled into taking it. There is no way to differentiate between you, who wants to install what they wish, and those people that believe it is really Apple cold calling them.

Apple is not a monopoly, so I feel their attitude here is fair.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#264

Post by 59nadir »

davidivadavid wrote: post #170
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #100

The problem is, Apple taking a cut from service where they don't own the device (you bought it from them; you own it) don't provide the network (you contract for that yourself) don't provide the content Its just some kind of strong-arm tactic - they do it because they can. Like some bouncer outside a club who demands money, but is not employed by the club nor the act. Just standing in the door and demanding money, an…

That's a pretty obvious straw man. They take a cut for the marketplace. Which is the service apps rely on.

Except these apps aren't really using the marketplace. Pretty much the entire service is being delivered outside of the marketplace and they purposefully don't charge for the app download so as to not use the payment processing of Apple.

Apple is trying to force apps to go through the marketplace and their payment processing, however, also forcing them to take the 30% markup. The policy as followed here is "Everything you provide you have to provide via Apple's services so we charge you extra".

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#265

Post by scarface74 »

duncanawoods wrote: post #252
cdmckay wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple invests an enormous amount into R&D to make their devices. For example, they make their own CPUs, which happen to be some of the fastest ARM chips you can get. I don’t think it’s any different from consoles. The main difference is that with a console you know what the deal is. With an App Store app, the problem is you don’t know if Apple is going to deny your app on an inconsistently applied rule after spending…

They sell their devices at a healthy margin. Their financial interest in the device should stop at the till. If they want to sell additional software and services then they can prove their value on a competitive level playing field. Right now they are double-dipping, not because of value they are adding, but because of the power they have given themselves over the consumer/developer relationship.

So is Amazon “double dipping” on the Kindle are the console makers? Are grocery stores for marking up products and having slotting fees?

The App Store is a service.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#266

Post by csunbird »

pcwalton wrote: post #41
epanchin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If one is able to install software without going into the App Store, then one is also liable to be socially engineered into installing software from outside the App Store. No thanks. Keep iPhones in their walled gardens where they are safe. Androids exist for experimentation.

This IAP policy has nothing to do with security though.

There is. By only allowing purchases by in app purchases, Apple can force the app developers to be fair in their return/refund processes. There are tons of scummy companies and developers want to take money from the customer and not return it if the customer is unhappy or even when they are exercising their legal rights and hope the customers to not bother for their 1 to 5$ purchase.

Believe me, the rules do make sense.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#267

Post by scarface74 »

kelnos wrote: post #255
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.

That's true, but that sort of sandboxing and permission models do not require a gatekeeping corporation to seek rent from everyone who wants to build for the platform. In fact it requires no interaction from the corporation at all. iOS's app sandboxing and permissions model would work just as well if apps could be sideloaded.

Sandboxing won’t stop shady and illegal developers. Neither will review. The story of what happens to a platform when you allow any crap on it goes back as far as the original Atari 2600 to Android that has four times the market share but still less revenue for developers.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#268

Post by scarface74 »

gamblor956 wrote: post #249
scarface74 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right. It’s 25%. https://www.quora.com/How-much-do-game-companies-make-from-e...

You may be surprised to learn that retail stores pay the manufacturers for their products (at "wholesale" prices), and are free to sell them at whatever markup they wish. Thus, retailer margin can vary anywhere from negative (doorbusters) to 1000% (i.e., alcoholic beverages).

We are talking about software in particular - I cited software sells.

An app developer is free to charge 43% more to still get their desired amount.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#269

Post by scarface74 »

kelnos wrote: post #256
scarface74 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re right. It’s 25%. https://www.quora.com/How-much-do-game-companies-make-from-e...

I think it's safe to say that game retailers are not representative of all retail.

I worked at Radio Shack in high school. It was about that for electronics.

But since we are talking about software. How is all retail more relevant.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#270

Post by skc »

It's a pity that so many companies have effectively locked themselves inside the walled garden. They did it willingly too and it's fantastic until it's not.

Every time the topic of Apples app store rules comes up on HN the general consensus always seems to be that the rules are fair.

Now that a highly visible company is kicking up a fuss it'll be interesting to see if Apple even responds

Post reply on HN