Apple's App Store Policies Are Bad, But Its Interpretation and Enforcement Are Worse (daringfireball.net) 39
Earlier this week, Apple told Basecamp, the company that makes the brand new email app called Hey, that it cannot distribute its app on the iPhone unless it makes it possible for users to sign up via Apple's own prescribed methods -- which gives Apple a 30 percent cut. Apple told Basecamp that by avoiding giving an option in its iOS app to sign up and support in-app purchases, it was violating Apple's App Store policy, 3.1.1, which says: If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, etc. Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase.
Dieter Bohn, writing for The Verge: The key thing to know is that the text of this policy is not actually the policy. Or rather, as with any law, the text is only one of the things you need to understand. You also need to know how it is enforced and how the enforcers interpret that text. It should not surprise you to know that Apple's interpretation of its text often seems capricious at best and at worst seems like it's motivated by self-dealing. And the enforcement consequently often seems unfair.
The rule states that if you want to sell digital goods, you have to use Apple's payment system. Except that's not how 3.1.1 has been interpreted to date. It has been interpreted as allowing people to access services they paid for elsewhere on their iOS devices, but not allowing those apps to try to get around the Apple payment rules when people sign up on those devices. That's convoluted, but that interpretation is what keeps Netflix from having an account sign-up in its app. It's the policy that has enraged Spotify and keeps you from buying Kindle books on your iPhone without jumping through a million weird Safari hoops. That was already a very bad rule, if you ask me. Now, with this email app, Apple is apparently changing its interpretation to be more strict. David Pierce, in an update to his news report about Hey-Apple debacle: Apple told me that its actual mistake was approving the app in the first place, when it didn't conform to its guidelines. Apple allows these kinds of client apps -- where you can't sign up, only sign in -- for business services but not consumer products. That's why Basecamp, which companies typically pay for, is allowed on the App Store when Hey, which users pay for, isn't. One other distinction: Apple allows "Reader" apps -- things like Netflix and Kindle and Dropbox, where you're using the app to access existing subscriptions -- as long as they don't offer a way to sign up. But email, messaging, etc. don't count as Reader apps. John Gruber, writing at DaringFireball: The lone instance of "consumer" refers to the "Consumer Health Records API". The price that Basecamp pays for not supporting in-app purchase in their iOS app is that they lose whatever number of users would have signed up in-app but won't sign up out-of-app. That's competition. Again, putting aside arguments that Apple should allow apps to use their own payment systems in apps, or be able to link to a website for sign up, or at the very least just tell users how to sign up -- the makers of an app should be able to say "OK, we won't even tell users how to sign up within our app; our app is only for existing customers and we'll obtain all of them outside the app." [...]
Second, how could such a distinction be made in writing? There are some apps that are definitely "business services" and some that are definitely "consumer products" (games for example), but to say that the area in between encompasses many shades of gray is an understatement. The entire mobile era of computing -- an era which Apple itself has inarguably largely defined -- is about the obliteration of distinct lines between business and consumer products. [...] At some level there's a clear distinction here -- Netflix and Kindle are clearly consumption services. But Dropbox? Dropbox is a lot closer to an email or messaging service like Hey than it is to Netflix or Kindle. The stuff in my Dropbox account is every bit as personal as the stuff in my email account. When you put Dropbox in the same bucket with Netflix and Amazon Kindle, it seems to me like the distinction is not so much between what is and isn't a "reader" app or what is or isn't a "business" app, but between companies which are too big for Apple to push around and those they can.
The rule states that if you want to sell digital goods, you have to use Apple's payment system. Except that's not how 3.1.1 has been interpreted to date. It has been interpreted as allowing people to access services they paid for elsewhere on their iOS devices, but not allowing those apps to try to get around the Apple payment rules when people sign up on those devices. That's convoluted, but that interpretation is what keeps Netflix from having an account sign-up in its app. It's the policy that has enraged Spotify and keeps you from buying Kindle books on your iPhone without jumping through a million weird Safari hoops. That was already a very bad rule, if you ask me. Now, with this email app, Apple is apparently changing its interpretation to be more strict. David Pierce, in an update to his news report about Hey-Apple debacle: Apple told me that its actual mistake was approving the app in the first place, when it didn't conform to its guidelines. Apple allows these kinds of client apps -- where you can't sign up, only sign in -- for business services but not consumer products. That's why Basecamp, which companies typically pay for, is allowed on the App Store when Hey, which users pay for, isn't. One other distinction: Apple allows "Reader" apps -- things like Netflix and Kindle and Dropbox, where you're using the app to access existing subscriptions -- as long as they don't offer a way to sign up. But email, messaging, etc. don't count as Reader apps. John Gruber, writing at DaringFireball: The lone instance of "consumer" refers to the "Consumer Health Records API". The price that Basecamp pays for not supporting in-app purchase in their iOS app is that they lose whatever number of users would have signed up in-app but won't sign up out-of-app. That's competition. Again, putting aside arguments that Apple should allow apps to use their own payment systems in apps, or be able to link to a website for sign up, or at the very least just tell users how to sign up -- the makers of an app should be able to say "OK, we won't even tell users how to sign up within our app; our app is only for existing customers and we'll obtain all of them outside the app." [...]
Second, how could such a distinction be made in writing? There are some apps that are definitely "business services" and some that are definitely "consumer products" (games for example), but to say that the area in between encompasses many shades of gray is an understatement. The entire mobile era of computing -- an era which Apple itself has inarguably largely defined -- is about the obliteration of distinct lines between business and consumer products. [...] At some level there's a clear distinction here -- Netflix and Kindle are clearly consumption services. But Dropbox? Dropbox is a lot closer to an email or messaging service like Hey than it is to Netflix or Kindle. The stuff in my Dropbox account is every bit as personal as the stuff in my email account. When you put Dropbox in the same bucket with Netflix and Amazon Kindle, it seems to me like the distinction is not so much between what is and isn't a "reader" app or what is or isn't a "business" app, but between companies which are too big for Apple to push around and those they can.
So? (Score:2)
If you are using an Apple device and are interested in running apps made by a third party, then I can't understand your logic.
Re: (Score:1)
For me it was kind of a benefit. For a few years, the Android version of Kindle Reader would wait a second, then pop a "Buy the audible version" over the "information" icon for a book I was reading. So twice I wound up one click buying an audible copy of a book, having to deal with Audible customer service, no, you can't close your Audible account without closing your Amazon account, blah blah blah. Never happened on Iphone, because Amazon refuses to give Apple a cut of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those instructions used to work, but no longer do. There is no "Payment Options" anymore, and if you click "1-Click Settings" instead, there is no "Disable 1-Click everywhere". Thanks, Amazon.
After I accidentally purchased free Prime Video content one too many times, I gave up waiting for Amazon to fix their website, and created a custom custom browser stylesheet that marks the buy buttons with "display:none !important". Amazon's entire business model seems to be built around getting people to buy thing
Re: So? (Score:2)
Don't attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
Amazon's offerings are myriad and put together with glue and tape. The big revenue drivers are their primary catalog on amazon.com and their Amazon app (excluding Prime and Kindle). On these platforms, one click ordering has a very easy and prominent way to undo the purchase.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a ridiculously myopic view. Most of the apps on my phone are third party apps. I don't use the default Mail app at all. There are lots of great apps on the store.
But Apple's view of what makes them deserving of money is starting to broaden to unacceptable levels. Apple provides a little bit in this case—an API, a user base, a store—but they're demanding a lot more than they deserve considering most of the functionality resides on a server somewhere, and you're paying mostly for the services that Hey provides, not Apple's interface to it.
They need a better middle ground here. I'm not going to migrate off the platform just yet—all my stuff is from Apple, and I like the way they run things in general—but they've got virtually no backing on this. JOHN GRUBER thinks this is bad policy, and he's made his whole career off of being an Apple pundit, and one that's very often on Apple's side.
The concern is that Apple is leaving aside the things that make it great for the things that make it money. It's a bad direction. If they do things that are great, the money will come regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
The people who care about this are the people and companies developing applications, not the end users.
If you want people who use Apple devices to use your app, you have to pay the tax. Apple claims it's to give the user's choice. But they won't allow you to let the users know that their *is* a choice.
When you make a deal with the devil (Score:2)
When do we get to say... we told you so?
Too soon?
Re: (Score:1)
Apple is a company town (Score:1)
As long as I'm not forced to live there, why should I care?
Android is Google's company town.
Now what?
When everybody is a company town we have a problem.
The market is not very open in this business
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
:-) Let me know when you see one, that works [techrepublic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Android is Google's company town.
A better way to phrase this would be, "The Play Store is Google's company town." Because with Android, someone built a giant mall just outside the city limits (Amazon's company town, or better yet, sideload whatever the heck you want).
Android's ecosystem and development are open. If you want a semi-walled garden, too, that's your choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, Apple is trying to charge rent on its payment system, the only payment system allowed on iPhone. For services that work on PC and iPhone, the price the developers charge is 30% higher for iPhone signups... so customers are better if sign up on the PC.
Apple's next move may be to tighten their App Store... but that'd make everybody remove their iPhone signup options.
Re: Apple is a company town (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
it's more like visa demanding 30% of the transactions in a specific town and all other cards being banned in the town and cash as well.
anyway ms wanted to get in on this 30% pie.. thats why windows 8 was so shit. luckily it was so shit.
also you have to understand historically that the reason why developers ran to apple and ios is that 30% cut and just a yearly fee of only 100 bucks was a really really small cut at those times from mobile payments. you were super lucky on other mobile ecosystems to get 20% o
Games are used in businesses too (Score:1)
Second, how could such a distinction be made in writing? There are some apps that are definitely "business services" and some that are definitely "consumer products" (games for example), but to say that the area in between encompasses many shades of gray is an understatement.
Maybe SOME games - okay, many games - are 99+% clearly consumer-oriented, but games as a class are used in business settings for training, team-building, and other business purposes.
I think the fact that even this example is a bad one helps prove the author's point.
Terrible summary (Score:1)
Outlook on iOS has been very successful and they have no problem f
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure why basecamp can't do the same.
They did, and Apple rejected it. That's the problem.
Just as you suggested, there is no sign up page in the app and there isn't anything directing users to sign up via the website. They specifically modeled this part of their app after what Netflix does, but for some unknown reason Netflix and countless others are fine while this new app from the people behind Basecamp isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
you can't mention being able to sign up outside of the app. your users have to figure it out. considering it's 2020 it shouldn't be that hard for most people
Re: (Score:2)
you can't mention being able to sign up outside of the app.
So far as I know, they didn't. They just said you can't sign up within the app, which is the same as what Netflix does. Maybe Apple took issue with the particulars of how they phrased that you couldn't sign up within the app?
Staying out of Apple's walled garden (Score:2)
This type of policy is why Apple products are off my list of potential options. They want tight control over everything you do.
Just another year gone by... (Score:3)
Re:Just another year gone by... (Score:4, Insightful)
Every year I look forward to WWDC because I'm excited about the new technology
When was the last year Apple had exciting new technology? The Apple Watch is the most recent I can think of, and it's only exciting to some people.
I'm in favor (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously? Infrastructure? Ever put anything in the App Store? YOU - the developer - does all the work. Enters all the text, images, details, everything. Apple - at most - hosts your page and clears any funds. Shopify (and thousands of other store hosts) do the same thing for less than 3% - and the vast bulk of that (2.6%) is for the credit card processing fee.
Maybe Apple should set it down to 3%, like it is for any other ecommerce hosted site. And accept that. They already got you to drop $1000+
Re: (Score:1)
Apple is doing absolutely nothing to advertise Hey. I don't see how an argument for affiliate payments can hold water.
To your point of a lower fee, apple charges 15% after the first year for subscriptions. It's still 15% they don't deserve.
How does in-app revenue affect ASO? (Score:2)
I publish apps and one thing that concerns me is App Store Optimisation (ASO) in relation to keyword ranking based on revenue.
Apple would never divulge how they rank keywords on their App store, nor should anyway expect them to.
Google plays a constant cat and mouse game with SEO to prevent gaming of its keyword algorithms.
Anyway, I digress, but let us imagine for a moment that Apple surrenders and allows apps on their App Store to chose any payment method they like, their own App Store payments become optio
If you'd like to protest... (Score:1)
Don't pay via apple. Apple only gets a cut if you signup via apple.
How to (assuming you use any apple devices):
- cancel your subscription via apple https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202039
- renew your subscription directly with whatever service provider you use
Not different from selling in Walmart etc. (Score:2)
If you sell a product through a distributor like Walmart then you can bet they take at least 30%.
If you are a publisher selling through Amazon, how much does Amazon take? I don’t know but pretty sure it will be closer to 30% than to 10%.
As a producer, you pay for the privilege of accessing the big customer pool of these resellers, and the Apple App store is the same.
Maybe a regulation will force Apple to allow other stores. I would only occasionally buy from other stores, because I v
Re: (Score:2)
I can guarantee you that Walmart's profit margin isn't anywhere near 30%. Maybe a few items in the store hit that, but I'm sure their overall profit margin is in the low single digits. Grocery stores run about 1-3%, and I'm sure the grocery section of Wal-mart is no different.
Personally I think Apple's 30% cut is obscene, especially considering that a Walmart is a physical store with physical goods that need to be stocked, whereas Apple takes 30% because it's either pay it or not be allowed into their wal
Selective enforcement by necessity (Score:2)
The difference between Netflix and Basecamp is that Apple *has* to fully support Netflix and other marquee brands. All parties concerned well know that Apple needs Netflix/FB/Amazon/etc more than they need Apple. A phone without Netflix?! Apple had to back down after mumbling some vague BS when the majors refused to pay the tax.
But, things are different for Basecamp and the rest of the long tail. Fly, meet swatter.
This all makes a certain twisted sense in the framework where us customers are corporate prope
Selective is the keyword here (Score:2)
Selective enforcement of the rules -- outside the digital ecosystem -- has been the root of many real life problems. It looks like it has jumped into our wallets too.
I can understand why the rule is there. Except for the obvious economic part:
* It allows users to manage all their subscriptions from one place (did you try cancelling a newspaper subscription?)
* It gives some quality control. Users can ask for a refund without going thru hoops. So no more buggy DLCs
* It also allows parents / companies to mana