Apple Made ProtonMail Add In-App Purchases, Even Though it Had Been Free For Years (theverge.com) 56
An anonymous reader shares a report: On Tuesday, Congress revealed whether it thinks Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google are sitting on monopolies. In some cases, the answer was yes. But also, one app developer revealed to Congress that it -- just like WordPress -- had been forced to monetize a largely free app. That developer testified that Apple had demanded in-app purchases (IAP), even though Apple had approved its app without them two years earlier -- and that when the dev dared send an email to customers notifying them of the change, Apple threatened to remove the app and blocked all updates. That developer was ProtonMail, makers of an encrypted email app, and CEO Andy Yen had some fiery words for Apple in an interview with The Verge this week. We've known for months that WordPress and Hey weren't alone in being strong-armed by the most valuable company in the world, ever since Stratechery's Ben Thompson reported that 21 different app developers quietly told him they'd been pushed to retroactively add IAP in the wake of those two controversies. But until now, we hadn't heard of many devs willing to publicly admit it. They were scared.
And they're still scared, says Yen. Even though Apple changed its rules on September 11th to exempt "free apps acting as a stand-alone companion to a paid web based tool" from the IAP requirement -- Apple explicitly said email apps are exempt -- ProtonMail still hasn't removed its own in-app purchases because it fears retaliation from Apple, he says. He claims other developers feel the same way: "There's a lot of fear in the space right now; people are completely petrified to say anything." [...] "For the first two years we were in the App Store, that was fine, no issues there," he says. (They'd launched on iOS in 2016.) "But a common practice we see ... as you start getting significant uptake in uploads and downloads, they start looking at your situation more carefully, and then as any good Mafia extortion goes, they come to shake you down for some money."
And they're still scared, says Yen. Even though Apple changed its rules on September 11th to exempt "free apps acting as a stand-alone companion to a paid web based tool" from the IAP requirement -- Apple explicitly said email apps are exempt -- ProtonMail still hasn't removed its own in-app purchases because it fears retaliation from Apple, he says. He claims other developers feel the same way: "There's a lot of fear in the space right now; people are completely petrified to say anything." [...] "For the first two years we were in the App Store, that was fine, no issues there," he says. (They'd launched on iOS in 2016.) "But a common practice we see ... as you start getting significant uptake in uploads and downloads, they start looking at your situation more carefully, and then as any good Mafia extortion goes, they come to shake you down for some money."
Proton should include Micro Transactions (Score:2)
Like a $.00001 charge for something people would normally get for free.
Re: (Score:2)
They charge 5-30 euro / month (Score:3)
Peotoj Mail had set their pricing long ago. They have plans ranging from 5-30 euro per month.
https://protonmail.com/pricing [protonmail.com]
Apple's policy is that if customers buy the service that the app does, they have to be offered the opportunity to buy it within the app.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Proton should include Micro Transactions (Score:5, Insightful)
If they have taken the large step to force you to offer something for sale, it's a much smaller step to force you to offer a minimum price for it.
All Apple has to do is unilaterally say, 'we'll take $5 per transaction, or 30% of your sale price, whichever is more. Oh, and we'll assume you're doing 10 transactions per 100 users per month, whether or not you actually do that many.'
Such is the power of a platform monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why would it? Apple can claim anything they like and usually do.
Re:Proton should include Micro Transactions (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a nice conspiracy theory but is that actually the reason Square used the headphone jack? It makes more sense to me that they used the headphone jack because it was/is a universal port to use. At the time all phones had headphone jacks so you could just make one device with a headphone connection and use it across all phones. Square would now need to have a Lightning connector version since new Apple phones don't have a headphone jack.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I realize this is a later reply but...
I didn't actually say that your original reasoning for why Square used a headphone jack instead of an Apple connector was a conspiracy theory just that it makes for a nice conspiracy theory. If you will notice I was actually asking the question if your statements were the actual reasons for the use of the headphone jack.
I did search for Jack Dorsey's explanation as to why they used the headphone jack instead of an Apple connector but I am unable to find any such explana
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder if this is part of what is preventing ProtonMail from releasing their client on F-Droid. I imagine they build both the Android and iOS app from the same codebase and maintaining a separate one for Apple is too much trouble.
I have been in contact with the guys at ProtonMail regarding a release on F-Droid and they said that they want to do it, so it's not an issue with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Like a $.00001 charge for something people would normally get for free.
They (Apple) have tiers for in-app purchases, and I doubt they go that low.
Gsuite (Score:5, Interesting)
How to get a payment processing exemption.. (Score:2)
I believe they accept cash and other non-electronic methods via donations, so they can openly put the non-Apple method on the site. End result: Apple will have to add an exemption or lose money.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You just set yourself up to be assaulted by both the fanbois and the Libertardians. Like to live dangerously, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The tricky thing here is that, while ProtonMail has a free version, it exists to promote the paid product. I don't think Apple cares if the people using the free version don't pay anything. Their problem is with certifying, hosting, and distributing an app so Proton can profit without getting a cut. If they let Proton do an end-around the App store payment processing, then everyone can. And then the App store's business model ceases to work.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what's unethical about providing a store, product development resources, and consumer confidence/awareness and expecting to get a cut. Perhaps we have very different definitions of ethics. It appears to me that Apple has provided a great economic opportunity for thousands of developers.
Huh? (Score:1)
How is Proton going to bill me when they don't know who I am?
Oh, you installed an Apple app. Well then you get what you deserve.
Re: (Score:1)
I mean it's not like phone service is something you pay for. That has nothing to do with the topic. I really don't understand why you bother trolling.
Re: (Score:1)
I mean it's not like phone service is something you pay for.
Not everyone uses a phone. You want to go through the trouble of setting up an anonymous mail account and then connect to it using something that tracks your every move?
Malicious Compliance (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I really, really like that idea. Charge for your app on Apple, give it away free on other platforms. If/when Apple caves and you find that others *cough* Google *cough* are also greedy, reverse.
Re: (Score:2)
I really, really like that idea. Charge for your app on Apple, give it away free on other platforms.
I think that is an excellent idea. I'd not be surprised if they have some terms hidden deep in their contract prohibiting that as well, douchebags that they are.
apple should do jail / prison phone where the fees (Score:2)
apple should do jail / prison phone where the fees can really add up.
Like fees to add funds
Emails at rates of $0.39 page + added fees for pics.
Games that are free cost $1.99-$9.99
Music at $0.99 - $1.50+ an track
Video visits at $5-$8 for 15 min
phone calls at $0.59-$1 per min More for collect
etc
Simple Solution (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Users can just go get the app from someplace other than the Apple App Store. Problem solved.
And how, pray tell, would one do this exactly?
Re: (Score:1)
Sideload through iTunes? is that a thing anymore?
This is a perfect example (Score:2)
of why we should have regulatory action against apple for their monopolistic practices. They have 1Tril$ they don't need more, it is a disservice to everyone to have them exist in their current form
Why the grief over adding IAP. (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple doesn't control what you charge for iAP, so just add IAP that is double what a customer would pay on the web - or just bake in Apple's 30/20% fee.
So I don't get why there is THIS much vitriol over Apple wanting apps that charge for signups online, to also add IAP as a way for users to do signups,
I don't think it is true of ProtonMail, but for many other companies I would suspect the reason they get so mad, is because they get no payment data about the user if a person uses IAP, and they are not satisfied with the money alone.
Re: (Score:2)
There is only one reason they force it in and that is greed and abuse of their monopoly. Now before someone says 'they aren't a monopoly! Android has a bigger userbase!' Well they have roughly half the user base AND their app store is the only one that is usable for tha
they use free software in every organ ... (Score:5, Interesting)
... of their company, but they won't allow people to give away free software on their platform.
thats the problem. the fundamental principles of the personal computer revolution of the 80s, which apple was a part of, were to decentralize computing resources and information technology and democratize them for the masses.
open source and free software were always part of that, along with the taxpayer funded universities that a lot of that software came out of. Apple did not shrink away from that, it embraced it in the 90s with adopting everything from the BSD kernel to LLVM to the Konqueror browser.
Apple is not just making some obscure technical business decision. They are actively working against the very same principles upon which they were founded and actively destroying the ecosystems that allowed them to flourish and grow in the first place.
They are disrespecting their own legacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple did not shrink away from that, it embraced it in the 90s with adopting everything from the BSD kernel to LLVM to the Konqueror browser.
Apple is not just making some obscure technical business decision. They are actively working against the very same principles upon which they were founded and actively destroying the ecosystems that allowed them to flourish and grow in the first place.
They are disrespecting their own legacy.
Yup. Just another group of people that take all they can, but don't give anything back that is not either encumbered or expensive By comparison, Google also uses a lot of open source technology, but at least they also give back a lot of useful and free stuff to the public at large.
Re: (Score:2)
And even to their compeitors, for example, the didn't HAVE to help microsoft with its Chromium based Edge browser, or Android based surface, but actually they worked WITH microsft in a positive way, despite what may have been many years of antagonism between the two companies.
Credit to both of them.
Completely wrong, many free software iOS apps (Score:1)
they won't allow people to give away free software on their platform.
Sorry to be so late in responding, no one else will probably see this correction but you are 100% wrong.
Apple is based on Free Software, and does not shy from others giving it away.
Multiple Python apps on the App Store for instance.
Or Nethack on iOS.
There are a million examples of Apple letting iOS devs give away free software on iOS and the Mac. Where do you get the notion from this is not so? What example can you even give?
Re:Why the grief over adding IAP. (Score:5, Insightful)
So I don't get why there is THIS much vitriol over Apple wanting apps that charge for signups online, to also add IAP as a way for users to do signups,
Two reasons. First, you're misunderstanding the reason for the vitriol, and second, it's the (unlawful) pressure the monopoly holder is applying.
Also in case you aren't following along, that's exactly what Epic is suing Apple about, [slashdot.org] although many lay people don't understand the details.
So breaking it down a bit more....
On the first reason, it isn't about the fact that Apple wants a cut. As many companies describe -- including in Epic's lawsuit -- businesses are fine paying a reasonable fee for the services. Nor is it about the fact that Apple's IAP system can be used for payments, for businesses anything that makes it easier for customers to hand over their money is a good thing. Those are not the source of the vitriol. Instead, the vitriol is that Apple forces companies to alter their products to follow their payment rules, and there are no alternatives. It isn't an option. You cannot use your own if you have one, you cannot use an alternative if you already have one in place, you cannot use a competitor, and competitors are barred from entering. If you want to be on the platform you must use their payment system, you must pay their rates. And for these companies and a few others described in the congressional findings, Apple changed the rules and demanded they introduce IAP, leveraging their monopoly power to force compliance.
A key detail is the monopoly status. For smaller markets, demanding compliance to rules like that is questionable but usually allowed. However, once a company reaches sufficient market force or establishes a monopoly, the rules are different. The law (such as the federal Sherman Act) recognize that once a business has monopoly powers, businesses have no other options but to comply. Instead of being an open market where they can compete against other companies, where they can choose other distributors or payment system, they are compelled by Apple's rules to give Apple a pile of money. It's basically corporate extortion.
And that's also the nature of Epic's lawsuit. While the amount Apple charges for their service is what lay people talk about, the actual lawsuit's ten counts are all about monopoly abuse. Their claims are 1) federal unlawful monopoly maintenance in app distribution, 2) federal denial of essential facility in app distribution, 3) federal restraint of trade in app distribution, 4) federal unlawful monopoly maintenance in payment processing, 5) federal restraint of trade in payment processing, 6) federal unlawful tying of monopoly power, 7) California restraint of trade in app distribution, 8) California restraint of trade in payment processing, 9) California unlawful tying of monopoly power, and 10) unfair competition through monopoly power abuse.
Basically this government release adds more ammunition to most of Epic's allegations. Developers don't have a choice, if they want on Apple's devices they need to follow all of Apple's rules. The biggest question in the lawsuit has been if the judge will interpret Apple as having a monopoly as controlling the Apple Ecosystem, or if the judge interprets the Apple Ecosystem as a piece of a larger market of cell phones. If you want to read along in the congressional report, hit pages 93-107, 329-375 and pages 377-386. The short form is a congressional declaration that they're a monopoly, that they are abusing their powers, and a six-part recommendation that they be broken up, be forced open, and be strongly regulated.
I don't think it is true of ProtonMail, but for many other companies I would suspect the reason they get so mad, is because they get no payment data about the user if a person uses IAP, and they are not satisfied with the money alone.
Possibly tr
1984 won't be like 1984....thanks to Apple, (Score:2)
... it will be even worse than 1984.
Big Brother is not just a government anymore, it's a profit making entity that must return quarterly improvements to it's stock price to hold up The Market.
If you give something to someone else for free, you are a threat to the Invisible Hand, and must be punished.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope... (Score:5, Informative)
I have purchased thousands of dollars worth of software over the years, and I still use a lot of it on older machines.
I weigh up the purchase cost, decide if the financials stack up, and buy or not as the case may be.
You have IAP or Yearly/monthly cost I walk away from your software, not interested.
Your rational may be different from mine, and I don't care.
And I use more and more open source software these days.
Your job may be to maximise the removal of money from my wallet, mine is to minimise it.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't accept IAPs even for airlines, restaurants, or other such apps?
Blanket statements are always stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You obviously don't use any internet connected software, or those old machines running old software would have long ago been hacked. Perhaps they are owned by hackers already and you simply don't know it yet (until you hit a value threshold for it to be worth install ransomware on all your machines).
Anything that is internet connected requires regular updates closing vulnerabilities continually discovered. Those updates usually come as a support contract.
As for things not connected to the internet and not e
Re: (Score:2)
I bought every version of Parallels Desktop for the Mac up until version 8, then they got greedy and wanted subscription for where I work.
We shifted to alternative software and used WINE for other software.
We had about 10,000 licences for Adobe Acrobat, it was on every computer , Adobe got greedy and upped the price and we are down to less than 1000.
Even if they drop the site licence fee, we will use the alternative software, being caught once is enough.
I still run FileMak
Re: (Score:2)
-1, anti-informative
In-app purchases and subscriptions are orthogonal concepts.
Re: (Score:2)
But here is the thing, I am also free to have my world view, and given that it impact MY wallet, its the only one that matters to me.
Having to pay a fee each and every year so I can access MY files looks more like blackmail from my perspective.
And my post is 100% informative, it tells developers etc how I will and won't spend my money
Re: (Score:2)
"I am also free to have my world view"
But you are not free to have your own facts.
"Having to pay a fee each and every year so I can access MY files looks more like blackmail from my perspective."
That has nothing to do with in-app purchases. Your attempt to equate in-app purchases with subscriptions isn't a point of view; It's just a lie.
Re: (Score:2)
That fact may be different for you, and I don't care one way or the other. When its your money, you are free to do with it as you wish.
Yet Apple Says They're A Victim (Score:2)
App Store just works (Score:4, Insightful)
Originally, App Store was a concession both literally and figuratively. SteveJobs wanted to build out the apps. But NeXT taught that brilliant engineers exist outside the corporation with expertise and skills which a company would never accumulate on its own. But he also wanted control. Control over the “ kind” of quality that made Apple user’s loyal to its brand. THUS the concession to opening up its API to third party devs.
Instinctively SteveJobs wanted paid. Apple had teased failure once already. Letting the gate open to the golden goose was never going to be free - as in free beer. The problem was the concession rights without giving the store away. Steve saw this store as what would sell more Apple hardware scheme. Software that didn’t promote Apple, Apple hardware and its services needed culling. Therein AppStore promoted apps like Microsoft Word and demoted apps like Mac Project that encouraged its use with Microsoft Project. Further refinements tilted away from WallSt-type “ platforns” in favor of Apple branded platforms oriented toward consumers. Subscription pricing evolved off these platforms which Apple extended and embraced its concession mentality over.
Today Apple’s monopoly concessionaire holds a 30% license same as it always has. BUT scale has raised the weight of that license into being a rent imposed by policy and licensure that it is. What was a small concession in the beginning has scaled up to support the richest corporation in the history of the world.
AppStore “just works”. It works for users, developers and Apple. Except that it is a rent that user’s don’t realize is built into owning the products they buy from Apple. Further, the rent has grown into a subscription if they wish to fully utilize its products. Insidiously, users purchase of applications to make Apple products useful which disguises a hidden rent that developers must pay to sell to Apple users. It is this gatekeeper rent hidden in every application that is “ at scale” an unlawful taking. Unlawful in that the service, certification and compliance costs of controlling third party applications is dwarfed by the amount of concession fees accumulated. It is now approaching a sum total staggering into the realm of monopoly. An amount of monopoly wealth that has the power to destroy, elevate or motivate any one product, service or technology simply by exposure to its users - a gatekeeper.
SteveJobs learned that there is only room in the market for two competitors. Microsoft has withered Apple surged and enjoys the spoils of its success. Market monopoly is not illegal. The stakes have changed, Apple must take the reigns of the monopoly it created, responsibilities and the liabilities that come with success.
How about a large gold star? (Score:1)
Rule #7 for surviving in the current world (Score:1)