Just ahead of Apple's World-Wide Developer Conference, the company is getting a lot of heat about their app store fees.
π Verge Story: Appleβs App Store Fees Are βHighway Robbery,β Says House Antitrust Committee Chair
TLDR: The Basecamp folks are being loud about their treatment under App Store rules and Apple's attempts to earn 30% fees. These rules more or less date back to the inception of the app store, and somehow Apple has avoided much scrutiny in the matter.
Nobody is better at causing a fuss about this kind of stuff than DHH and Basecamp.
How do you predict this will shake out?
Top comments (60)
I have no idea how it will end up but I hope Apple comes to their senses.
It wouldn't be a problem and nobody probably blame them for anything if they would've been consistent.
But small companies which only started to earn money have to pay 30% and live with it but huge unicorns like Netflix and Spotify have not? I feel it's really unfair and should be another way around in the perfect world.
PS I'm Apple fanboy but even I resent it π
What we have noticed is that Netflix and Spotify handle their subscriptions outside of the app to avoid the 30% charge. With this though, there are limitations such as not being allowed to explicitly direct your users out of app to make payments. There are a lot of holes they are jumping through to avoid the 30%.
Unfortunately, there aren't holes and that's the problem. If you can charge for your product outside of the AppStore we wouldn't have this conversation in the first place.
Apple forbid charging the customers outside of the AppStore and you have to sign up and charge through the AppStore.
HEY is already trying to do this, but Apple changed their policy recently that if you offer a subscription you MUST allow for users to sign up through your iOS app which means paying the fee.
Also it seems to be a per case situation. They won't force Netflix or Spotify to change it, but they sure will try it on emerging apps that don't have the kind of resources those other behemoths have.
I love my Macbook Pro and my iPhone, I just appreciate Apple's decision on making their ecosystem stable and secure.
But in regards to the App Store fees, I think Apple is belittling their other customer which are the developers.
Have they ever thought to themselves that if all of a sudden all developers will stop publishing apps for their platform will greatly affect their revenue?
sure they can always pay other developers to build for them but would it be a boring ecosystem without competition? and without competition there's no innovation?
I hope Apple will think deeply on their current decision, because right now they might think they are superior, but they under estimated with what the open-source has achieved in these past couple of years and we can see that Microsoft is adopting the principles in to their business and it seems going pretty well for them.
So I think they should have to think about that long term and hear the feedbacks from us devs.
I feel Apple is relying on Stockholm syndrome a bit too much π
Yeah, the truth is that once you go through all of the effort and time and programming required to make sure that Apple gets their cut so that they'll accept your app - you feel almost a blind loyalty to their platform because you've taken the time to figure it out and understand it.
π―
I imagine this has been discussed, but they won't think it's going to happen. And it probably won't. There isn't an alternative to the App Store that's usable for most users and if there were, Apple could keep releasing updates that disabled or hampered it.
yeah. that's what I also thought. It's their house their rules anyways, so it's only up to use if we play by their rules or move elsewhere.
Considering itunes and xcode, apple should never be allowed to develop any consumer app ever. This would look like reverting all web pages to fancy 90's.
Marketing is one of the many things DHH does best. Basecamp (creators of HEY) knew what Apple's rules were before writing a line of code. He found an opportunity to get a million dollars worth of press for HEY by doing what Spotify did last year.
In a few months, DHH, a representative from Spotify (USA Inc), and a few other App developers will testify in front of congress to debate why Apple is a monopoly. In the meantime, Basecamp will cave to Apple's rules because they need HEY to be in the App Store. For now, Apple holds all the cards, and they are not going to fold unless they have to.
Exactly, Apple is too big to make a change without a higher power forcing them. But then again, even if they bring this to congress, the since the US has that lobbying thing, they could still come out good from this entire process.
Nope.
Developers are paying for access to a large and specific userbase.
App stores are very convenient from a software distribution perspective.
While the 30% fees is steep ,
developers/business owners should always consider it as a factor while deploying on app store.
I think the guys at basecamp should just behave rationally and hike the price for iOS platform or find some sort of pricing model which compensates the difference.
But the thing is you can't offer a different price for App Store subscription per their guidelines.
And yes, App Store is a convenient way to distribute your app, but its also the ONLY way. That's why this ends up as a monopolistic practice.
Also, how should multi-platforms app do? Would I need to subscribe through the App Store instead of web just so my iPhone can have the app? What if Google Play Store starts demanding the same thing?
As far android is concerned, sideloading is allowed but at the cost of lucrative play services SDK. And play store implements rules haphazardly.
App stores are platforms where softwares are deployed. While creating a sustainable business model, it's necessary to study the deployment platform and implement the suitable 1 business model.
One of the best case studies for multi platform deployment is alto's adventure. It's paid on iOS and free on Android. They know the platform and target audience and implemented pricing models with the platforms on mind.
gamasutra.com/blogs/BencinStudios/...
I see, you might have a point. seeing it on a broader perspective it's just capitalism at work so I think there's nothing too see much about it.
Yeah. I think this is just the matter of our own decision whether we stick with them or find alternatives that will work with us.
Also it looks like the basecamp dude testified against apple for app store pricing practices and now expects to have some sort of preferential treatment from Apple ....
Well that's some logic....
I don't understand your logic here. Basecamp has always been vocal about Apple's monopolistic practices.
I dunno the exact history around basecamp and apple. I just read the tweet thread and found it funny that dhh testified against the platform and then expects the platform to provide preferential treatment to his business.
It doesn't make sense to me but that's just my viewpoint.
I think the bigger problem is not the fee but the some apps get exempted while others are not even-though they are in the same category
I think Apple has become too big to care about anything else but its bottom-line. History has a clear lesson for people like that. Kings fall, it takes time, but tyranny eventually gets over.
As a Developer, Apple abuse of "privacy and security" they use as an excuse for hight fees, for the paleozoic tool they made us use (Xcode looking at you), an excuse to not implement features only because they threat their app store revenues.
They are not creating a likely environment for developers.
They are already like IE, but they do it on purpose.
As a developer, I will never develop anything for apple's device unless I have too.
They are losing the trust of the community with their tyranny.
XCode (all 6.66GB of it) is gross. No lie. π
I don't know if there is something worse than XCode.
Perhaps iTunes.
Seriously I would love to drink a beer and chat with an application product designer working at Apple.
I hope, it will lead mobile app companies coming to their senses ans leave those platforms.
They should pour resources in the web to get it on-par.
How it is even a problem? Hey is for profit, their subscription costs money, those are the terms Apple suggests, you either like them and pay or go away. This is how free trade works. Not sure what all the fuss is about, or what do you mean by "scrutiny".
I think there's plenty of motives to hold a grudge against Apple:
I can go on. On the other hand, Hey would use Apple's platform to be distributed, and DHH says they don't want to pay for that. I don't think it's fair either.
Maybe if Apple can lower their share...
I think if Apple doesn't decide, it will become the next IE.
Never hurts to try!