At this point all the large companies have already cut deals with Apple.
If you are a small player or a startup, just think that all your purchases will need to go through the IAP and 30% of that belongs to Apple.
If you model your business and cash flow with that in mind, they you be in a much better position to continue doing business on Apple devices .
If you think that your business will not be profitable giving 30% to Apple , then shut it down now and rethink it - because your customers will be on Apple devices and sooner or later - Apple will force you to include IAP.
15 years ago if you told me Nokia would get 30% of your cable TV, newspaper, file storage, music, book, software and video gaming spending I would have laughed.
Yet this is the reality we find ourselves in today.
Back then we thought it would be the carriers that would be the arbiter of mobile services and not the handset manufacturers.
I remember, before the iPhone, 3 was selling unlimited YouTube streaming (amongst other 3rd party web services) over 3G for a fixed price in at least some European markets.
The major carriers in Japan were already arbitering all sorts of services through each carriers own version of the World Wide Web. Back then, Japans mobile market was seen as being maybe a decade ahead of the rest of the world.
Yen says it’s strange that Apple’s actual written rules aren’t as clearly defined as what I’m telling him, and that he doesn’t trust the rules in general: Apple originally justified blocking the app because of an obscure rule that apps shouldn’t “include irrelevant information,” he says, and he believes that the results of app review are largely predetermined: “They made a decision, and then it’s just about pointing to the relevant passages of the rules to justify the decision they’ve already made.”
I totally agree. I've built apps that have been rejected, gone through their review board, etc. and ended up never being allowed because of a rule that didn't even apply to us. On a call with the Apple reviewer, they stated, "it is a private store and we choose who will be on it." Kinda sums it up.
This article is misleading. Apple doesn't let you make a free app that references a paid service outside the App Store, which is what ProtonMail was doing. If they allowed it, every app would be "free", they'd all make you go to their own websites to pay so they could bypass Apple's cut, and Apple would make no revenue from the store / hosting / curation / platform they provide.
The difference is that for installers, you've discovered and been distributed the software by an entity other than Microsoft, and you're not paying for the curation process. Consequently, it's easy to mess up a Windows system by running a random malicious installer.
Microsoft also offers an app store, and even a way to restrict Windows to only running software from that app store (S mode), but they take the somewhat-standard 30%. One nice thing they do that I think Apple should adopt is taking a smaller cut if you visited the store through a web link (meaning Microsoft didn't provide the "discovery" and thus shouldn't be compensated for it).
Right so Apple is doing something I didn't ask of it to do, and then saying I'm not allowed to distribute and provide discovery for my own applications. And then charging me for it doing this.
I don't mind Apple doing whatever they want with their own store, I have an issue with them dictating that their own store is the ONLY way to use an iPhone.
You can do a beta version and run it through TestFlight.
You can get an Enterprise license and run your own App Store — MDM vendors like JAMF do this all the time. And they can help you set up your own App Store, too.
> The difference is that for installers, you've discovered and been distributed the software by an entity other than Microsoft, and you're not paying for the curation process.
Yes, but that's because Microsoft _allows_ people to install software this way. Apple doesn't give that option for iPhones, and it's kind of strange to think that forbidding that somehow entitles them to a 30% cut.
This worked fine for decades and the sky hasn't fallen yet. Being able to run "random malicious installers" as you call it was what made Windows successful in the first place and how it stays relevant today.
It does work for Windows, but the expectations are different there. I think being able to buy a completely open device and also buy a completely closed device is a good thing. I don't want every device to be locked down, but I'm okay with my iPhone being a console-like "it just works" device. The difficulty of screwing up an iOS device is a feature, in my opinion.
It's the same thing with my Switch, Xbox, 3DS, whatever. They all keep working well over time because apps are limited in what they can do, and they are curated.
Meanwhile, because on Windows and macOS you aren't limited to their respective app stores, the app stores don't have as complete a selection as their locked-down counterparts, meaning you have to go outside the store to get everything you need. Consequently, a Windows computer gets slower over time, and you're never sure if you've completely uninstalled something, unless you use one of the now numerous 500MB+ launchers/updaters. MacOS is marginally better, but I still have to go and clean out LaunchAgents and LaunchDaemons, and wonder if it's the Razer kext causing kernel panics because it was cheaper for them to make one than build everything necessary into the mouse. On both OSs, it's extremely nontrivial to figure out if some software is causing the device to wake from sleep and drain the battery. The consequence of allowing application developers to do anything is that they will do everything, and it's very hard as an OS developer to keep all the user software well-behaved.
> I guess windows should start banning installers and force everyone to go through the windows store.
I think Microsoft actually tried something like that on one of their other platforms. Xbox, maybe?
I gather it was a big failure so they abandoned their proprietary ways and opened it up to Steam, Epic Game Store, etc., but it was too little too late.
Too bad though - I heard it had some good games like Halo, Forza, and Gears of War. ;-)
This can still happen at any time. Microsoft had been slowly tightening the screw for non-store apps since Win10 (or even Win8?) was released. Only when their own store tanked (and maybe because the company focus moved to Azure) did they slow down a bit.
From the article: "They stumbled upon something in the app that mentioned there were paid plans, they went to the website and saw there was a subscription you could purchase, and then turned around and demanded we add IAP."
This is the part that Apple took issue with. Either they remove references to the external paid service, or they provide a way to pay for it from the app, with the usual fee. It's misleading to characterize this as "Apple forces a free app to become paid". Apple is just doing their usual thing of requiring that payments for features of an app cannot bypass Apple's payment system.
> Apple doesn't let you make a free app that references a paid service outside the App Store
Counter examples: Audible. Amazon. Netflix.
The contract nuance is more subtle than what you described. Iirc the app can’t directly link to the payment system on the website, but Audible (for example) has an intermediate currency (“points”) which can be transacted in-app. Real world currency transactions must be made on the website, outside of the app. Without the website account and transactions, the app is pretty useless.
The Netflix app is perhaps marginally more useful without logging in and Amazon is marginally more useful than that.
Your examples aren't really counter-examples at all since the App Store rules specifically exempt content providers as long as Apple can individually review the content. That's the reason why services that do game streaming still aren't allowed. The companies running those refused to give Apple a way to review the content within those platforms which is a requirement of the review for content delivery services.
Yes, it is easy for Apple to add 'exemptions' since they are the sole self-appointed judge, jury and executioner.
In practice, what it boils down to is a calculus about whether the an app is powerful enough for its absence on the platform to be a dent to Apple. When RandomApp1245 is not on an iPhone, no one cares and it's the app that loses business, so they suck it and pay Apple the danegeld. If Netflix is not any iPhones, I suspect there will be plenty of people for whom it will be a deal-breaker.
If it is, there will magically be exemptions added. Which is how some of the App store rules read like a complicated boolean algebra of if this, but not that, unless this, but only in case of that.
Let's not pretend all this is happening out of some fundamental noble meta-principle.
If you have a service that does not require an app, but the app is an additional convenience for your customers, why should Apple be entitled to 30% of everything? That is an extremely common scenario.
Because Apple wants it and they are one leg of the international duopoly of mobile OSes. And most small apps aren't important or differentiated enough for people to change platforms over.
This really needs concerted action on part of 5-6 big apps, such as Netflix, Facebook etc. Anything short of that, and Apple is going to keep eating their lunch like a school bully.
IMO it requires government regulation since the app stores function as virtual "natural monopolies" (natural monopolies are regional monopolies created by the nature of the product or service you provide). Natural monopolies are most definitely regulated by sane governments.
26 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 74.6 ms ] threadIf you are a small player or a startup, just think that all your purchases will need to go through the IAP and 30% of that belongs to Apple.
If you model your business and cash flow with that in mind, they you be in a much better position to continue doing business on Apple devices .
If you think that your business will not be profitable giving 30% to Apple , then shut it down now and rethink it - because your customers will be on Apple devices and sooner or later - Apple will force you to include IAP.
Yet this is the reality we find ourselves in today.
I remember, before the iPhone, 3 was selling unlimited YouTube streaming (amongst other 3rd party web services) over 3G for a fixed price in at least some European markets.
The major carriers in Japan were already arbitering all sorts of services through each carriers own version of the World Wide Web. Back then, Japans mobile market was seen as being maybe a decade ahead of the rest of the world.
I totally agree. I've built apps that have been rejected, gone through their review board, etc. and ended up never being allowed because of a rule that didn't even apply to us. On a call with the Apple reviewer, they stated, "it is a private store and we choose who will be on it." Kinda sums it up.
Hmm maybe epic and steam should be banned and just use the windows store. They provide the platform after all.
Microsoft also offers an app store, and even a way to restrict Windows to only running software from that app store (S mode), but they take the somewhat-standard 30%. One nice thing they do that I think Apple should adopt is taking a smaller cut if you visited the store through a web link (meaning Microsoft didn't provide the "discovery" and thus shouldn't be compensated for it).
I don't mind Apple doing whatever they want with their own store, I have an issue with them dictating that their own store is the ONLY way to use an iPhone.
You can do a beta version and run it through TestFlight.
You can get an Enterprise license and run your own App Store — MDM vendors like JAMF do this all the time. And they can help you set up your own App Store, too.
There are alternatives. You just don’t like them.
Yes, but that's because Microsoft _allows_ people to install software this way. Apple doesn't give that option for iPhones, and it's kind of strange to think that forbidding that somehow entitles them to a 30% cut.
It's the same thing with my Switch, Xbox, 3DS, whatever. They all keep working well over time because apps are limited in what they can do, and they are curated.
Meanwhile, because on Windows and macOS you aren't limited to their respective app stores, the app stores don't have as complete a selection as their locked-down counterparts, meaning you have to go outside the store to get everything you need. Consequently, a Windows computer gets slower over time, and you're never sure if you've completely uninstalled something, unless you use one of the now numerous 500MB+ launchers/updaters. MacOS is marginally better, but I still have to go and clean out LaunchAgents and LaunchDaemons, and wonder if it's the Razer kext causing kernel panics because it was cheaper for them to make one than build everything necessary into the mouse. On both OSs, it's extremely nontrivial to figure out if some software is causing the device to wake from sleep and drain the battery. The consequence of allowing application developers to do anything is that they will do everything, and it's very hard as an OS developer to keep all the user software well-behaved.
I think Microsoft actually tried something like that on one of their other platforms. Xbox, maybe?
I gather it was a big failure so they abandoned their proprietary ways and opened it up to Steam, Epic Game Store, etc., but it was too little too late.
Too bad though - I heard it had some good games like Halo, Forza, and Gears of War. ;-)
This is the part that Apple took issue with. Either they remove references to the external paid service, or they provide a way to pay for it from the app, with the usual fee. It's misleading to characterize this as "Apple forces a free app to become paid". Apple is just doing their usual thing of requiring that payments for features of an app cannot bypass Apple's payment system.
Counter examples: Audible. Amazon. Netflix.
The contract nuance is more subtle than what you described. Iirc the app can’t directly link to the payment system on the website, but Audible (for example) has an intermediate currency (“points”) which can be transacted in-app. Real world currency transactions must be made on the website, outside of the app. Without the website account and transactions, the app is pretty useless.
The Netflix app is perhaps marginally more useful without logging in and Amazon is marginally more useful than that.
In practice, what it boils down to is a calculus about whether the an app is powerful enough for its absence on the platform to be a dent to Apple. When RandomApp1245 is not on an iPhone, no one cares and it's the app that loses business, so they suck it and pay Apple the danegeld. If Netflix is not any iPhones, I suspect there will be plenty of people for whom it will be a deal-breaker.
If it is, there will magically be exemptions added. Which is how some of the App store rules read like a complicated boolean algebra of if this, but not that, unless this, but only in case of that.
Let's not pretend all this is happening out of some fundamental noble meta-principle.
This really needs concerted action on part of 5-6 big apps, such as Netflix, Facebook etc. Anything short of that, and Apple is going to keep eating their lunch like a school bully.
Again, they are paying $99/year. Whether that is enough is different set of questions though.