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

You download the app and it doesn’t work

youdownloadtheappanditdoesntwork.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 559 posts

Re: You download the app and it doesn’t work

#251

Post by pdonis »

MrStonedOne wrote: post #180
hendzen wrote: post #37

Apple takes a 30% cut of all IAP. Google scrapes info and displays it in widgets above links to the actual content. Google charges trademark holders AdWords ransom to protect searches for their own brands. Amazon kills OSS business models by offering managed OSS services on AWS at an unbeatable cost. Amazon picks off the best performing market place categories with Amazon Basics ‘recommended’ competitors. The list go…

I feel it pertinent to point out that comments like yours help keep the status quo. Pointing out that apple is not alone in a thread trying to raise awareness about apple's practices both distracts from apple's unethical behavior and contributes to normalizing the behavior in public perception. So my question to you is: do you want to see these unethical behaviors end? or continue?

Why is it unethical to charge a fee to developers who want to distribute their software through an app store that Apple owns?

I get that it's unpleasant for developers who don't like the policy, and at some point it might have business consequences for Apple if they don't change the policy, but why is it unethical?

Re: You download the app and it doesn’t work

#252

Post by wrkronmiller »

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #220
roenxi wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These things are true; and also a significant component of Apple's value proposition. An Apple customer can be sure they will: 1) Never need to learn what a "sideload" is 2) Never be exposed to Apps that havn't been vetted by a trustworthy party (in this case Apple) Apple is taking the opportunity to milk app developers, but they've done an effective job of positioning the milking process so that it is done in the us…

> An Apple customer can be sure they will: (1) Never need to learn what a "sideload" is, and (2) never be exposed to Apps that haven't been vetted by a trustworthy party. But Apple customers can be sure of that anyway--just don't sideload apps. Anything essential is going to want to be in the App Store, in order to reach customers.

> Anything essential is going to want to be in the App Store, in order to reach customers.

The logical extension of that argument is that the Hey app would still be in the App Store and still be facing this exact problem.

Re: You download the app and it doesn’t work

#253

Post by flobosg »

dgudkov wrote: post #76

On a side note, I don't know whether it's intentional or not, but the whole story is a great marketing campaign for HEY. Clashing with Apple made everybody learn about the app in a matter of days.

> David, I’ve got to I ask you, because so many people have said this. You’re very successful. Basecamp is excellent at marketing. Did you do this on purpose? Did you time this to create this firestorm before WWDC?

> I wish I was that smart. Imagine if I was that good at 4D chess. Imagine just the mechanics of this: first, you have to plant someone within Apple that approves the application, which, and then, what, I plant someone on Monday that then disapproves it? How does any of this work? How powerful do I have to be to orchestrate this?

- https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/18/21295778/apple-app-store-...

Re: You download the app and it doesn’t work

#254

Post by jpttsn »

iSoron wrote: post #5

> "That’s not what we want on the store" -- Apple Vice President of Worldwide Marketing What if I own an iPhone and HEY is what I want on my phone? How can I override Apple's decision? If I can't, who really owns this device?

When you bought the device, did you expect it to run “Hey”? If Apple promised that, sue them. If not, you’re just confused about what you bought and probably shouldn’t handle your own money.

Re: You download the app and it doesn’t work

#255

Post by slantyyz »

moooo99 wrote: post #115
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #2

It's a good thing for Apple that WWDC isn't in-person this year. I wouldn't trust the developers in the audience to stay quiet and applause at the announcements this year...

I'm surprised that Hey! managed to create such a big public outrage about that issue. Years ago Spotify complained about the very same thing and given that Spotify has a much bigger userbase I kind of expected the outrage to be bigger. I suppose a large share of the potential Hey customers work in tech and might have a better understanding of what the app store tax actually means. And the EU anti trust investigations…

I people like a David (in this case, HH) vs. Goliath story and wants to root for the so-called little guy.

I tend to think Spotify is too big for the media and other pundits to consider to be the little guy.

Re: You download the app and it doesn’t work

#256

Post by sukilot »

searchableguy wrote: post #136
MattGaiser wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't that part of the point of open source? If you want people to have to pay for it in some way, it needs to be part of the license. The license is essentially free for all.

Legality doesn't always cover everything because that would result in a lot of problems. People operate on the spirit of the law, not the actual words or at least they are supposed to. There is an expectation of contribution back.

The spirit of open source is to protect the users, not benefit the authors.

Re: You download the app and it doesn’t work

#257

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

paulhodge wrote: post #102
parsimo2010 wrote: post #52

I think there needs to be some distinction between apps that are the main product (or close to it) and apps that support another product (like there is npo point to having the app by itself, you should already have gotten the product/account before downloading the app). I don't know too much about Apple's rules to know if they use that criteria, but it makes sense to me. An app to manage your Tesla makes no sense unl…

Tesla is definitely one of the easier cases to think about, the rest are in a grey area. But even with Tesla it's not 100% crystal clear. There might be some buyers who pick Tesla specifically because of the fancy tech features like Summon mode. It's impossible to use Summon mode without the app. So for one of those buyers, the app is an essential part of the purchase, just like HEY subscribers who expect to read ema…

> It's impossible to use Summon mode without the app

My Model X does summon using only the keyfob.

For Model 3 owners without a keyfob (it's an optional extra) - yeah, I'll give you that.

Re: You download the app and it doesn’t work

#258

Post by woadwarrior01 »

tathougies wrote: post #215
roenxi wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These things are true; and also a significant component of Apple's value proposition. An Apple customer can be sure they will: 1) Never need to learn what a "sideload" is 2) Never be exposed to Apps that havn't been vetted by a trustworthy party (in this case Apple) Apple is taking the opportunity to milk app developers, but they've done an effective job of positioning the milking process so that it is done in the us…

Apple should then rent their hardware out then or provide long-term leasing. If Apple is selling devices for ownership, then the device should truly be owned. I would rather they be honest, and lease the device out (even for a fixed sum for an unlimited period of time), than to claim ownership.

They’ve been doing that[1] with iPhones for a while now.

[1]: https://www.apple.com/shop/iphone/iphone-upgrade-program

Re: You download the app and it doesn’t work

#259

Post by MrStonedOne »

Think of a flee market.

Lets say this flee market runs their own PoS system that tables can use, they require all sales happen via this PoS system "to protect customers from hacking", and they charge a percentage for providing this service, higher then normal under the guise that the transaction is being conducted on their property, they are "hosting" the "sale" under their roof, so they set the terms for it. Seems fair and good, ish

Now lets say that they also own the city bank, and they are the only one allowed to take their bank's debit card as payment. Most people don't use the other, newer bank because everybody they know is using the flee markets bank as it was first. So if you want to take credit card payments you have to sale at the flee market.

Is it still fair and good for them to continue to set all terms relating to how sales are conducted in a selfish way when they have a monopoly gained in part from first mover advantage? eh, maybe, maybe not.

Now they say that if you sale any spare parts or consumables for a product that was originally sold at the flee market, you must only do so at the flee market.

Is it still fair and good for them to use the fact that the transaction is happening on their property to set higher fees on these follow up transactions when they require these follow up transactions to happen on their property? While exploiting a first mover advantage that causes more of the initial transactions to happen on their property?

Never forget that you can't just look at each piece, the whole matters too.

Each individual piece of the macro is ethically an "eh" at most, but the whole is a bit more then "eh"

Re: You download the app and it doesn’t work

#260

Post by MrStonedOne »

pdonis wrote: post #251
MrStonedOne wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel it pertinent to point out that comments like yours help keep the status quo. Pointing out that apple is not alone in a thread trying to raise awareness about apple's practices both distracts from apple's unethical behavior and contributes to normalizing the behavior in public perception. So my question to you is: do you want to see these unethical behaviors end? or continue?

Why is it unethical to charge a fee to developers who want to distribute their software through an app store that Apple owns? I get that it's unpleasant for developers who don't like the policy, and at some point it might have business consequences for Apple if they don't change the policy, but why is it unethical?

Think of a flee market. Lets say this flee market runs their own PoS system that tables can use, they require all sales happen via this PoS system "to protect customers from hacking", and they charge a percentage for providing this service, higher then normal under the guise that the transaction is being conducted on their property, they are "hosting" the "sale" under their roof, so they set the terms for it. Seems fair and good, ish

Now lets say that they also own the city bank, and they are the only one allowed to take their bank's debit card as payment. Most people don't use the other, newer bank because everybody they know is using the flee markets bank as it was first. So if you want to take credit card payments you have to sale at the flee market.

Is it still fair and good for them to continue to set all terms relating to how sales are conducted in a selfish way when they have a monopoly gained in part from first mover advantage? eh, maybe, maybe not.

Now they say that if you sale any spare parts or consumables for a product that was originally sold at the flee market, you must only do so at the flee market.

Is it still fair and good for them to use the fact that the transaction is happening on their property to set higher fees on these follow up transactions when they require these follow up transactions to happen on their property? While exploiting a first mover advantage that causes more of the initial transactions to happen on their property?

Never forget that you can't just look at each piece, the whole matters too.

Each individual piece of the macro is ethically an "eh" at most, but the whole is a bit more then "eh"

Post reply on HN