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

481–490 of 559 posts

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

#481

Post by pfranz »

preinheimer wrote: post #319
breakfastduck wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a bit of a joke to be honest. Hey are trying to market an app on the app store as a 'free' app. Not offering sign up also means they don't have to add the 'offers in app purchases'. So they're advertising the app as free. Even though its $99 a year. Apples 30% cut is obscene and should be less. But Hey are using a 'free' label to market their app.

You're catching some flak here, but I think it's a fair point. It says "free", but all you get for free is... an icon on your home page and a login screen. Apple could solve this by allowing a "Free, account required" descriptor/category for Netflix/Dropbox/etc/etc. So "Free" is a lie, but one many other apps have used beforehand.

I think Apple solved this issue years ago because they got flack about "Free" apps that would have in-app purchases. Apps are not marked "Free" in the App Store. Instead it simply says "Get" to download the app.

They could add a "requires account" tag like they have "in-app purchases" but I don't think that would satisfy what Apple is looking for here (money).

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

#482

Post by hejja »

lifty wrote: post #120
mns wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they are being ridiculous already. It’s one thing to help developers and try to bring up their stories and issues with the App Store, it’s another thing to come up with ridiculous examples (Tesla, banking apps, AirBnB and so on, that have nothing to to with SaaS, subscriptions and IAP) and this insane campaign for their own product.

What about Netflix and Amazon? Those examples seem very valid to me.

I interpreted the "reader app" definition in their policy as:

either - app value is content driven (netflix) OR - data-driven (bloomberg) OR - or physical (airbnb, amazon)

in cases where you could say, the client is the "main driver of value" they are pretty consistent.

take a game, for example -- or hey's proprietary filtering system.

that said, I don't agree with 30%, jsut my understanding

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

#483

Post by bredren »

landric wrote: post #460
quitethelogic wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hey's little mini site There's a github link at the bottom. Doesn't look to me like there is any affiliation with Basecamp. Edit: Your point still stands, however. DHH made it pretty clear when we said they'd burn it all down. (Don't remember the exact quote)

[site OP] No affiliation with Basecamp.

You may want to clarify that!

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

#484

Post by 1123581321 »

screwycaboose wrote: post #410
1123581321 wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weren’t fine. They spoke against Google, Facebook and Apple last year in front of Congress. https://exponentsmag.org/2020/02/11/antitrust-for-thee-profi...

Last year in front of Congress (while actively developing this new product). They never mentioned it despite Basecamp being in the app store for years and paying Apple $0. The "oh my this is shocking and unfair" act is all a ruse. They've been well aware of this since the onset, they even copied Netflix's app text so they can feign "see we're just like them!" despite knowing they're not.

Last week, effectively every iOS developer would have looked at their implementation and predicted App Store approval. It’s important to understand that because if you just read Apple’s rejection letter (you’ve read it as you repeated a talking point from it), you might think Apple was just clarifying a rule familiar to app developers.

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

#485

Post by pdonis »

jeffchien wrote: post #333
pdonis wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

>Why is it unethical to charge a fee to developers who want to distribute their software through an app store that Apple owns? This is only part of the complaint, right? The other parts is that: * Apple has the only keys to the hardware platform. * This is in contrast to Google or Steam, who also charge 30%, but do not completely own access to their respective hardware platforms. * This is also in contrast to physica…

> This is only part of the complaint, right?

It's the part I'm interested in. I get that Apple's policy is a pain in the ass to a lot of developers, that Apple is inconsistent and arbitrary about how it applies that policy, and that all this greatly restricts developer access to users of Apple's hardware. What I don't get is how any of this is unethical. Bothersome and irritating, yes, but why unethical?

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

#486

Post by pdonis »

acituan wrote: post #368
pdonis wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Why is it unethical to charge a fee to developers who want to distribute their software through an app store that Apple owns? Developer don't necessarily want to distribute their software through that app store, they are forced to do that if they want to sell their software to people who happen to use that operating system. Operating system and app store are distinct products, but app store exclusively gatekeeps th…

> If app store was a standalone offering that aimed to benefit the user, there shouldn't be any problem allowing multiple competing app stores people paid for the convenience of vetted and curated apps and letting the market forces decide the winner.

And if all that would benefit users more, users would be demanding it, or switching from iPhone to something else. But they're not. Users seem overall to be quite satisfied with what they are getting from their iPhones. So your claim here appears to be empirically false.

> strongarming the ecosystem and stifling market dynamics is the unethical move here

All this depends on your factual claim above being true, which, as I have noted, it appears not to be, based on actual user behavior.

But let's put that aside and assume that your factual claim is true. If that makes what Apple is doing unethical, then probably every single large corporation on the planet is unethical. Certainly every large corporation in the tech industry is. They all do these things; they just don't all do them with an app store.

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

#487

Post by pdonis »

curyous wrote: post #285
pdonis wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It’s the size of the fee that is unethical.

So what determines how large the fee has to be for it to be unethical? I don't see any principled way to decide, which makes me doubt your argument here.

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

#488

Post by pdonis »

TedDoesntTalk wrote: post #305
pdonis wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why should software makers share their revenue with Apple? Why should Apple care what software makers want? I get that it's a pain to develop software for the iPhone and then have to pay rent to Apple to get it to users; but that's not Apple's problem unless enough users either complain or switch hardware to cut into Apple's revenue. That doesn't seem to be happening. Sure, there are plenty of users (I'm one of the…

Yeah, it’s a little like the Mafia used to do: give us a monthly payment or we’ll, ya know, make sure you’re of business. And you’re defending that?

> it’s a little like the Mafia

The Mafia didn't build things. It just came in and took over things others had built.

Apple built its app store. It built the iPhone. It got its users fair and square, by providing a product that users want. If you think that's the same as the Mafia, you have a very skewed view of business.

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

#489

Post by pdonis »

vore wrote: post #427
reaperducer wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So don't be on the App Store. Problem solved. Make it a web site. Make it an Android exclusive. Do any of the dozen other things you need to do to be a success. You don't have to be on the App Store to survive. Hundreds of thousands of developers and their programs aren't.

Making it a website is inconvenient for many reasons compared to an app. Making it Android exclusive sucks for people who have iPhones, and it's a tall order to ask anyone to switch away from an iPhone they have already purchased. The problem is categorically not solved here.

> The problem is categorically not solved here.

The "problem" being your convenience. Sorry, that's not anyone's problem but yours.

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

#490

Post by pfranz »

donmcronald wrote: post #138
breakfastduck wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There wouldn't be uproar if it was 10%. Everything else is perfectly reasonable but taking a 30% cut is extreme.

Paying 10% of your revenue for them to usurp your customer relationship seems like a bad deal to me. For developers I think a possible strategy would be to sell two products; standard edition and iOS optimized. Charge +30% for the iOS version since Apple users are (supposedly) willing to pay more.

Charging iPhone users more was actually one of the suggestions Phil Schiller made. I'm pretty sure Spotify charges more for people who subscribe from within the iPhone app. They made a lot of noise a year or two ago about this and ended up with this approach.

Personally, I'm very skeptical of subscription options since many companies are bad actors; making it difficult to cancel or throwing adds and promotions at you.

Post reply on HN