51–60 of 227 posts
Is the same as gmail, I can pay for a Google Suite, but the app is freely distributed in stores.
Basecamp should have great products (I've never used them), but it seems they are using this as a marketing strategy.
"These apps do not offer in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years." This is pretty grotesque coming from a trillion-dollar company that anyway already charges developers a yearly fee.
Without that top 10% layer of professional, honest apps from trustworthy companies, the app store is just a sea of scams, shams, and clones. Like barcode readers and tutorialware games with a $7.99/week subscription that only exists in the hopes that someone gets confused and clicks it.
Maybe they should follow what Netflix is doing, since they don't have in-app purchases in iOS which is why they don't allow registrations at all and force you to sign up on the web. Not sure about Netflix's Android app though, but Google has sort of done this to Epic Games but only allowing logins and no registrations + card checks might bypass the Apple 30% tax.
Maybe they should follow what Netflix is doing, since they don't have in-app purchases in iOS which is why they don't allow registrations at all and force you to sign up on the web. Not sure about Netflix's Android app though, but Google has sort of done this to Epic Games but only allowing logins and no registrations + card checks might bypass the Apple 30% tax.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But 50% of the smarphone market users might want to install software on they own property which Apple has clearly shown to be quite possible, if only Apple wouldn't stand in the way as the sole gatekeeper. It might not be specifically anti-trust violation, but if Ford behaved the same as Apple there would be 1-2 cars to pick from world wide!
Apple is about 20% of the market, not 50%. This isn't anti-trust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a different matter whether 30% is a valid cut for Apple to make on Hey In App subscriptions. But $2,400 (8*$300/year?) for the delivery and update, notifications and Siri integration etc to millions of apps/devices sounds a pretty good deal.
Where do you get $300 from? The developer program is $99/year regardless of how many apps you have.
Would it be more fair that - developers paid a hosting subscription for their app - pay for bandwidth used by the app downloads - pay for each update review - optional pay for promotion - Apple would not block legal content, just put it under a new category of stuff Apple disaproves but is legal. This would fix a part for the issues with stores, Apple can't say that they are hosting your app for free anymore or that…
I'll just put an .apk or .ipa file on my website and be done with these ridiculous stores. That's what's fair.
I see plenty of comments are focussing on this quote, re their Basecamp apps:
> These apps do not offer in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years
Apple have (freely) provided Basecamp a platform to grow their business via the App Store, whilst giving Apple (effectively) nothing in return.
Now that Basecamp want to grow their revenue further (at Apple's expense), AND they are breaching the rules (whether you agree with them or not) — I don't blame Apple for pressing the brakes. Especially not after all the negative press this whole debacle has brought them.