After Outcry, Apple Will Let Developers Challenge App Store Guidelines (theverge.com) 27
Apple today announced two major changes to how it handles App Store disputes with third-party developers. The first is that Apple will now allow developers to appeal a specific violation of an App Store guideline, and that there will also be a separate process for challenging the guideline itself. Additionally, Apple says it will no longer delay app updates intended to fix bugs and other core functions over App Store disputes. The Verge reports: The changes come in the wake of Apple's high-profile showdown with Hey, a new email service from software developer Basecamp. The service launched last week as an invite-only website and a companion iOS app, with a full launch slated for July. But after initially approving the app, Apple later rejected Basecamp's subsequent updates and kicked off what became a very public feud between the company and Basecamp's co-founders, CEO Jason Fried and CTO David Heinemeier Hansson, over whether Hey could exist in the App Store in its current form at all. The feud, inconveniently for Apple, coincided with the announcement of two antitrust probes from the European Union last week that were spurred in part from complaints from longtime Apple rivals like Spotify.
The central dispute in this case was whether Hey qualified for an exemption to rules around in-app purchases, which Basecamp decided not to include because the company does not want to give Apple its standard App Store revenue cut. Apple said Hey did not and claimed Basecamp's iOS app violated three App Store guidelines by not allowing you to sign up or purchase access to Hey from mobile. Fried and Heinemeier Hansson claimed that the decision was evidence of inconsistency and greed on Apple's part given the numerous apps, like Netflix and business software, that do qualify for such exemptions and have existed in the App Store without in-app purchase options for years. Apple last week tried to head off any future escalation of the feud by outlining its reasoning in a letter signed from the App Review Board, which it disseminated to Basecamp and media organizations. Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller also conducted interviews with members of the press. [...] On Monday, ahead of the keynote, Apple capitulated, allowing Hey's updates to go through only after a compromise from Basecamp in which the company now lets you sign up for a burner account that expires after two weeks.
The central dispute in this case was whether Hey qualified for an exemption to rules around in-app purchases, which Basecamp decided not to include because the company does not want to give Apple its standard App Store revenue cut. Apple said Hey did not and claimed Basecamp's iOS app violated three App Store guidelines by not allowing you to sign up or purchase access to Hey from mobile. Fried and Heinemeier Hansson claimed that the decision was evidence of inconsistency and greed on Apple's part given the numerous apps, like Netflix and business software, that do qualify for such exemptions and have existed in the App Store without in-app purchase options for years. Apple last week tried to head off any future escalation of the feud by outlining its reasoning in a letter signed from the App Review Board, which it disseminated to Basecamp and media organizations. Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller also conducted interviews with members of the press. [...] On Monday, ahead of the keynote, Apple capitulated, allowing Hey's updates to go through only after a compromise from Basecamp in which the company now lets you sign up for a burner account that expires after two weeks.
Finally moving forward (Score:5, Interesting)
If bundling Internet Explorer was anti-competitive, then this should be a no-brainer.
Re: (Score:1)
>> The developers in the App Store are not Apple's Customers.
Very, very wrong. The developers (at least the ones which don't have a free app) pay a hefty fee to apple, in order to have the right to sell their app, or IAP to the customers.
So the developers ARE apple's customers as well.
And the main problem is the fact that Apple does not allow any other application store.
They cultivate a monopoly. They block any form of competition.
Judge, jury, executioner (Score:5, Funny)
Apple today announced two major changes to how it handles App Store disputes with third-party developers. The first is that Apple will now allow developers to appeal a specific violation of an App Store guideline, and that there will also be a separate process for challenging the guideline itself.
So you can appeal it - but you appeal it to the exact same company/group who denied you in the first place. So you get to hear "NO" twice!
Re: (Score:3)
Apple simply needs to alter the way it does business, a simple contractual thing. Instead of taking a percentage of the retail price, it should have a purchase price the price the developer wishes to sell it to Apple for and then Apple puts a normal retail space markup on top and the app developer gets paid once the product is sold. Pushing it back into more retail like sales, means that Apple gets to choose what it sells for what ever reason it chooses. By the same token, Apple can not excluded other selle
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no problem with Apple creating a walled garden and taking a cut of the sales
I have a big problem with it. It's anti-competitive. Nobody else can create a walled garden if they wanted to only Apple.
What I do object to is the size of the cut. 30% seems excessive especially given how much profit margin they have in their hardware already. Why not a flat 15% like they already have for subscriptions after the first year? Or even a flat 10% across the board? They'd still be raking in a gigantic profit but be way more attractive to developers (large and small), especially when compared to Googs.
Attempting to manage the inevitable outcome of corrupting influence (single vendor monopoly position) is a fools errand.
Re: (Score:2)
The one striking thing here (Score:3)
is that no part of this feud is ultimately in the interest of the end user.
There is only 1 developer that counts.... (Score:1)
Microsoft does NOT want to give apple 30% of every seat of Office 20XX or Office 365....
A few more quarters of not raking in the dough like in the 90's and we will see a VERY differnet Microsoft.
It will be like 2 drug lords in Chicago fighting for turf! Get ready.
Re: (Score:2)
and when apple starts there own enterprise (Score:2)
and when apple starts there own enterprise system 365 and gsuit will be gone from apple.
Shit move by Apple (Score:4, Informative)
"You must make your mobile app have payable services so we can take a cut of your revenue instead of just being a portal to pre-paid email!"
Sounds like Basecamp should sue the fuck out of Apple for tortious interference of contract with its customers, and a RICO suit, because this is outright racketeering.
Re: (Score:2)
It is kind of weird that Amazon has their Kindle app -- but you can't actually buy books, and their Amazon App -- but again you can't actually buy products.
How is Basecamp any different?
Apple didn't say they have to do that (Score:2)
If you have any kind of store, I'm going to need you to put up this display in your store where your customers can scan a QR code to get my apps.
If you have an auto parts store, you'll need to put up a display for my fixit app. If you have any kind of store that serves tourists, you'll need to advertise my travel app in your store. By the way, I also need you to advertise my web site on your web site. Your cut of the sales is zero. If you don't advertise my stuff for me I'm going to scream "tortious interf
A big red flag to users. (Score:2)
Don't buy Apple
They interpret things any way they want (Score:3)
Apple interprets things any way they want, so their appeal processes are kind of a joke. E.g. I have an inexpensive app that is quite loved by its users so I was asked by some to provide a way to send donations/tips. So I added a "tip jar" with in-app purchases. However, Apple still takes 35% (not 30% if you include currency conversion - most of my sales are in USD and Apple gives me no choice other than GBP due to my location) from the donations. So I looked into their rules:
(vii) Apps may enable individual users to give a monetary gift to another individual without using in-app purchase, provided that (a) the gift is a completely optional choice by the giver, and (b) 100% of the funds go to the receiver of the gift. However, a gift that is connected to or associated at any point in time with receiving digital content or services must use in-app purchase.
Seems pretty straightforward, so I added an option on my app webpage and added a button in the tip jar that said something like, "or if you'd like to give me any amount you wish to show your support, donate on my website". I didn't even mention the Apple cut reason, just that they are not limited to the fixed app purchases. App was denied. I wrote to the reviewer and asked why, since I am not asking the payment for any digital content or services, their response was that the functionality was the "tipping the jar" (!!!) I wrote back that "tip jar" is an expression, meaning a place for donations. They responded that making a donation was a service (!!!)
Seriously. I launched an appeal in case I could get a response from a human. I got an official response a few days later. They said the reviewer was incorrect, but I was still rejected because with the donation I offered the development of the app (because they "support" me)!!!
And this is of course not the worst Apple story I have, but the most relevant to show that if they decide on THEIR rules, they can interpret them any way they want.
Burn it down (Score:2)
These app stores especially Apple's are anti-competitive monopolies in dire need of wholesale obliteration. Apple shouldn't have the option of attempting to (poorly) manage backlash against comically over-leveraging of its monopoly. That monopoly should simply not be ALLOWED to EXIST.