At the risk of sounding like an asshole, it's nice to see one's views validated. Some of us have been getting downmodded for bad-mouthing Apple's App Store and warning against this kind of stuff since its launch.
It's important to note that none of Apple's written or implicit policies have changed - it is only people's perceptions that are now changing.
The good part is of this debacle is that, either they will change their horrible attitude and policies, or people will abandon them for greener pastures.
And there won't be, until... developers start developing for something else.
If just ten independent developers with interesting apps ported to another platform (doesn't have to be to Android, but of course I'd prefer that) in a coordinated fashion, they'd get immense press and have some real impact.
I disagree. I know LOT's of people with an iPod touch that want an iPhone just because they want their apps to access the 'net everywhere, not just wi-fi spots. The iPhone is a game changer, and the app store is absolutely instrumental in the story of it's success.
If it isn't, why is the iPhone tagline "there's an app for that?"
I think the people you're talking about are nonrepresentative. There is a vast number of people who have not installed any apps, and even more who have apps but don't use them. Very few people see the iPod touch as an economical substitute for the iPhone.
No. You are wrong. Anecdotally, my older father is a way heavier user of apps than me. He listens to a lot of radio (NPR and even Pandora!) and loves the tip calculator and about a million other apps.
Kids loving playing games so much on their parents phones that Nintendo actually acknowledged the iPhone as a competitive threat on their earnings call.
Be careful about assuming things. Apple's iPhone is important because for the first time ever there is an incredibly simple, usable interface to a full-powered computer.
First off, comparing iPhone users to the overall mobile phone market is misleading at best.
And while I don't doubt that 75% of iPhone users use apps,
"For free applications, only about 20 percent of users return to use the app the first day after they download it, and then it quickly drops off from there. By 30 days out, less than 5 percent are using the app. The chart for paid apps shows a slightly steeper fall-off rate."
The iPhone isn't effectively utilized by the vast majority of its users, who value its cachet more then its applications ecosystem. As sibling points out, all the evidence you need is in the overwhelming success of the device before the app store existed.
The iPhone was a success before the app store. It succeeded because it looks sexy, it leveraged off the iPod, it's got an awesome UI, and the best mobile browser by far. The app store doesn't even come into the equation.
>> "because they want their apps to access the 'net everywhere, not just wi-fi spots."
This may be true more in the US, if you don't have many wifi spots. Here in the UK, you get free data (3G and wifi spots). The wifi spots cover most towns and cities, restaurants etc.
In 5 years we'll probably have wifi everywhere, so the whole thing will be a little redundant.
people buy an iphone because it is a sexy gizmo, because they want to be part of the hip crowd. If they could they would wear it on a chain on their chest instead of in their pocket. It's a status symbol first, phone second.
Admittedly it costs $100/year to get the signing key, but with that, I can program my own iPhone any way I see fit. I just can't count on Apple agreeing to distribute what I write.
That does suck, but it has little overall effect on the usefulness of the phone to me as a portable computer. When I bought my first iPhone, there was no App Store at all, and Apple was actively stating that there was not going to be any such thing. The value proposition was OK then, and it's OK now.
As far as people flashing their iPhones around conspicuously, I really wouldn't know anything about that. I use mine in public all the time, and one of the things I don't like about the experience is the way I completely lose awareness of my surroundings and people nearby.
> and one of the things I don't like about the experience is the way I completely lose awareness of my surroundings and people nearby.
That's a new one, never even thought that that might be the case. Interesting!
I've had it while on the phone and driving 'on autopilot', and since then I've become a lot more careful about using the phone in the car. (headset only anyway of course, but still). One day I missed my exit completely, and wasn't aware that it had happened until 20 minutes later (still in the same conversation). Quite a good lesson.
People went crazy about iphones before there was even such a thing as an appstore on the horizon.
I really don't understand why no other manufacturer is capable of producing something that gets close to the iphone. Even less since android is available as a platform. Sure, there still is the lack of multitouch, but I really don't get why nobody can come up with a serious device.
I really don't understand why no other manufacturer is capable of producing something that gets close to the iphone.
Because they're idiots who won't stand up to the tin-pot dictators at the mobile carriers.
The secret to Apple's success is actually quite similar to the secret to Microsoft's success: they've been fortunate at having incompetent competition.
It certainly has been a strange phenomena, seeing otherwise intelligent geeks arguing the virtues of such a closed and locked down system. I frankly started to wonder whether Apple had a team of paid voters. Hopefully all this results in a freeing up of US mobile networks.
Benevolent dictator syndrome. Apple/Jobs have produced a lot of cool and good products out of the 'my way is always the best way, and I need 100% micromanagement control to make things my way' attitude. Apple has always had this philosophy -- at least under Jobs -- but people tend dismiss it because up to now it's served Apple and Apple fans well.
Though I'm sure if you popped over to someplace like the AppleInsider.net forums there would still be a ton of people trying to defend Apple here. My feelings are the entire 'App Store Approval Process' issue boils down to this:
If Apple feels that they are so right _and_ justified to pull such stunts with the App Store, then why are they in many cases hiding behind some 'iron curtain' of corporate bureaucracy? Why not just come out and say, "These Google Voice apps duplicate 'x' functionality. Sorry, but we won't allow it." If their approval process is anything but blindly throwing darts at the wall, then why not _publish_ their standards so that iphone application developers _know_ what the do's and dont's are so they can navigate the minefield successfully? If those standards miss something, just amend them and apologize to the developer community for overlooking that aspect. But Apple is not doing _any_ of these things.
The developers for the AppStore are Apple's business partners on some level. They are obviously making Apps as part of their own business plans, but they are providing utility and functionality to Apple's product. Apple's product is _more valuable_ as a result of all of the various AppStore applications out there. Yet Apple seems to want to treat their business partners with disdain.
Personally, I would have a hard time trying to justify why I would want to do business with Apple after seeing the way it treats other companies that are doing business with it.
"These Google Voice apps duplicate 'x' functionality. Sorry, but we won't allow it."
That's almost word-for-word what they did say. The problem is inconsistency -- there are tons of apps that could be, but have not been, rejected on the same grounds.
What I would like to see is a widespread developer boycott of the iPhone platform. This would bring Apple back to the days where they used to cajole developers into writing software for the Mac.
As long as there is money to be made there will always be developers so a boycott is pointless. If every developer currently in the app store decided to abandon it tomorrow it would only serve to create an irresistible target for developers who had been turned off by the heavy competition.
Until we live in a world where every developer has all the money they could ever want there will always be developers for a platform with over 30 million potential customers.
The analogy with the Mac doesn't really work, because the Mac has never been anything but a computing platform. But the iPhone is a phone first and a platform second. Remember that the iPhone was a huge success when it was introduced in 2007, despite a higher price point and no third-party apps at all.
As long as the iPhone is subsidized by phone carriers, Apple's cash cow will be hardware sales. It won't be until the smartphone market reaches a certain level of saturation that Apple will have an incentive to focus on the App Store as a revenue generator. And when that happens, I bet they will be a lot less mercurial with their developers.
This sort of glosses over the underlying problem here:
Apple is treating the developers like crap now. Whether we classify this as outright abuse or just as sever neglect is up for debate, but it's hard to argue that Apple is doing a good job of treating the devs well.
So the developers are supposed to patiently sit by and just 'take' the abuse/neglect waiting for Apple to 'come around' or 'see the light?' I'm sorry, but you can't run a small business based on faith that another business will stop treating your contributions as crap and start treating you with more respect. And even when that business (Apple) decides to respect you more how long until the winds blow the wrong way and you're back to where you started... being treated like crap.
Even a large company like Google with a lot to offer and a good existing relationship with Apple is being pushed around with this AppStore crap. How exactly would you expect to be treated as a smaller business with little to no leverage with Apple?
I wouldn't agree that the iPhone is a phone first. How many people bought an iPhone so that they could call or text others? The value proposition of the iPhone is not in its phone features, it's in the smartphone features. The only reason that it doesn't seem to matter is because there is no real rival to the iPhone platform. I do agree that the smartphone market needs more real rivals to the iPhone (I'm kinda wondering how Nokia is fumbling so badly here). If the HTC Hero is as good as it is claimed to be, then maybe the iPhone will see a hit in the hardware division, and Apple will be forced to behave more like a democracy.
The thing about the App Store is that it allows small developers to reach huge audiences without a lot of logistical headaches. Little things to brick and mortar stores, like charging the right amount of tax to a customer, are huge problems on the web when you're trying to reach customers across the world. On the other hand, there are definite risks associated with using the App Store and this is one of them. You're absolutely right that people will abandon the App Store for greener pastures. Let's just wait to see where those greener pastures are.
Also, as you said, nothing has changed. Developers trying to make money are businesses first and foremost. They should leave their fanboy-ism at home when they set up shop. The people that are complaining the most about getting screwed by the App Store, as jws points out in another comment in this thread, are the ones that probably didn't even bother reading the contract between Apple and them, let alone getting a lawyer to give them specific legal advice about it for them.
I know that the barrier of entry for starting a business is quite low these days, but that doesn't mean that standards for professionalism should drop correspondingly. Part of being a professional is understanding what your obligations are. These obligations are outlined in contracts. Contracts are the emergency manuals that get pulled out in case something goes wrong. They dictate what you agreed to do in those situations. You wouldn't haphazardly sign an emergency evacuation plan. You'd probably read it over and try to understand if it all made sense. Treat your contracts the same way. They're all about corner cases, so they're a big deal.
The problem here is that you're confusing "legally wrong" with "morally wrong". I don't think anyone here is questioning the fact that Apple has completely covered their ass with the developer agreement. In fact they’ve essentially made it so they can do just about anything with impunity.
But that doesn’t make it right or fair. I’m not one of those “everything should be open” types but Apple should at least be required to publicly spell out its terms. In the example given in the article a developer had their app approved and it was actually in the store for months. Apple then pulled it months later and refused to even give the reason why (which in turn prevented the developer from remedying the situation). Then turned around and said the developer was responsible for dealing with the disgruntled customers even if it meant refunding their money (which they'd have to do since they had no way to remedy the situation).
Further I'd suggest these discussions have a precedent in our society. Society recognizes the fact that some things are simply too morally wrong to be allowed. Even by contract. If I sign a contract saying I allow you to do anything you want to me you still can't beat me to death with a baseball bat. Though this is obviously not in the same realm of heinousness as that the precedent is the same. You can't legally indemnify yourself against that which society won't tolerate.
Society recognizes the fact that some things are simply too morally wrong to be allowed.
I don't know what society you live in. But my society has Wal-Mart in it.
You think those Wal-Mart folks would hesitate to drop your product from their shelves without giving you a reason? You think they are shy about making their suppliers sign a scary one-sided contract and then holding them to it?
And the App Store is not made from Soylent Green. In the grand list of potentially unfair business practices I doubt this even rates. Compared to what the music industry does to bands every single day, this contract is sunshine and birdsong.
Alas, if you don't like Apple's contract terms you're stuck doing business with their competitors. Fortunately, they're easy to find. One of them is probably clinging to your leg right now.
Are you a John Mayer fan? I ask because that “Waiting for the World To Change” song has always bugged the heck out of me. I mean, DUDE, you’re a 30 year old millionaire celebrity whining about how you’re powerless to do anything? Come on.
Society is what we make of it and the worst possible excuse for letting an injustice go is because “it’s not like there aren’t other injustices in the world” Also, I think you are unfair to Walmart. I’ve heard of Walmart making almost unreal requirements of their vendors (include little tools with things that need to be assembled, adopt RFID without a price increase, etc…) But in each of those cases they actually MADE A DEMAND. Apple’s not even making demands here they’re just kicking apps to the curb with no explanation.
(You’re probably also being a little unfair to the record companies but that would lead to a debate of what they actually provide to artists and this really isn’t the place)
I'm not trying to excuse Apple. I'm just suggesting that the standards of "morality" in American business certainly encompass tying people to one-sided contracts and then taking advantage of them. That happens all the time.
So if your plan of action involves convincing anyone but a diehard geek that Apple's actions rise to the level of moral injustice... we've got a lot of work to do. There are a lot of people crying "moral injustice". We'll have to stand in line.
You think those Wal-Mart folks would hesitate to drop your product from their shelves without giving you a reason? You think they are shy about making their suppliers sign a scary one-sided contract and then holding them to it?
Actually, yes I do hesitate. WalMart makes its demands up front. You know exactly what you're getting into when you sign with Walmart. It doesn't change its behavior after you've signed the contract, or make capricious decisions. If something needs to change, Walmart lets the supplier know, and why it needs to change, and how it needs to change. Apple doesn't even give you an email.
Not sure if your comment was updated or I was just too quick to reply the first time, but as to the points you made in your final paragraph, I'm on the same page. I think the right courses of action here are:
1. Call Apple out on the contract clauses. See how they will respond. This specific case points out a derivative scenario they may not have accounted for. When they revoke an app because they feel it is "prudent" to do so, and the developer is left footing the bill.
2. Small iPhone developers should band together and form a guild or union. This guild, like the Writer's Guild, can yield considerable clout. Right now the problem is that most developers cannot afford to pay a lawyer to fight these matters. By teaming up, they could form a unified front and not only deal with Apple via lawyers, but possibly deal with them directly. It's easier for Apple to deal with one spokesperson on behalf of say, 5000 independent developers, than for them to try to deal with even a dozen ad-hoc cases.
Well we're at risk of defining what is right or fair. I loved my first year philosophy course just as much as the other guy but that's a damn slippery slope to go down :) I will say one thing on this matter though. Companies are amoral. The App Store may prove to be unpalatable, but don't think that some other company is more moral than another because when it comes down to it, morals are irrelevant to companies. It's why I believe in a strong regulatory government to keep companies in check, but again I'm at risk of getting this thread off on a tangent :)
Additionally, Apple has always remained consistent on their position on both revocation and refunds. It is public in that developers are told about this and must agree to the terms before joining. That's about as public as is necessary in my books.
So this should not be news to the developer. Let me bring up the relevant parts of the contract. I've skipped most of the examples because the last one is so broad as to cover the rest.
iPhone Developer Program License Agreement
8. Revocation
You understand and agree that Apple may cease distribution of Your Licensed Application(s) and/or Licensed Application information or revoke the digital certificate of any of Your Applications at any time. By way of example only, Apple might choose to do this if at any time:
.
.
.
(l) Apple has reason to believe that such action is prudent or necessary.
Also, Schedule 1, and 2 (which I believe is unique on a per-country basis) outlines the legal obligations for refunds.
EXHIBIT A (to Schedule 1)
4. Warranty: You must be solely responsible for any product warranties, whether express or implied by law, to the extent not effectively disclaimed. The EULA must provide that, in the event of any failure of the Licensed Application to conform to any applicable warranty, the end-user may notify Apple, and Apple will refund the purchase price for the Licensed Application to that end-user: and that, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Apple will have no other warranty obligation whatsoever with respect to the Licensed Application, and any other claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs or expenses attributable to any failure to conform to any warranty will be Your sole responsibility.
You seem to be trying to have it both ways here. If you believe in a strong regulatory government than you believe companies do need to have some morality. Because the very intention of laws is to uphold the moral standard society has set. In other words a company should ideally not break the law meaning if you believe there should be strong regulations you in turn believe companies should have to operate within the bounds of some kind of moral standard.
Moreover, I’m very libertarian leaning. I DON’T believe in a strong regulatory government. All I’m asking for is the most basic of protections. I don’t have a problem with Apple setting whatever terms they want but they have to (a) lay out the terms and (b) enforce them consistently.
Also, on the warranty, I'd argue the quote you used doesn't apply to the situation in the article. The language specifically says...
"The EULA must provide that, in the event of any failure of the Licensed Application to conform to any applicable warranty, the end-user may notify Apple, and Apple will refund the purchase price for the Licensed Application to that end-user"
But this wasn't a "failure of the Licensed Application" in that the application continued to work fine and had met Apple's requirements to the best of the developers ability to do so.
But again, the question is not “what is legal now” it’s “now that this new concept exists what should we as a society require of it”. That’s the discussion being had. Is what Apple’s doing right and should society allow it and if not what standards should be set so that our future isn’t bogged down by companies acting in the same way Apple does.
The developers accepted a contract agreeing to refund money in certain circumstances, the circumstance have occurred, it is time for them to uphold their end of the contract.
The sales have been rolled back, the customers' money is in the developers account (as sympathetic as "pocket" sounds, if they can carry the money in their pocket then this is about very little money at all), the customers get their money back.
I think perhaps everyone that learns this lesson does it the hard way. Understand the contracts you enter into.
(I learned mine at the hands of Digital Equipment Corporation. For "good will" reasons I agreed to supply a specific key person for a specific nearly completed project until it was finished for a specific sum. All good, until it became in Digital's best interests to not complete the project on time and get more money from the customer for another year's work. I'm sure the Digital managers had many a good laugh that year.)
It's not just about the refunds. The real issue is that they deny developers apps and give them no more than an up or down vote. And when you try and talk to somebody, they don't even give you the courtesy of a real conversation. Apple is nothing without its legions of fans. Those fans start with a kernel of developers and tech enthusiasts. You think my mom would have bought an iPhone if her geeky son didn't harass her for months that it's the only phone worth having? You think my sister-in-law wouldn't have bought a Mac if I hadn't convinced her that it isn't this scary OS that's so different from Windows?
I understand Apple has business contracts. I understand they are out to make money. All we're asking is that they stop being such profound douchebags in the process. All we're asking is that they stop shitting on the very people who helped build their success. All we're asking is they stop FREAKING people out with their man-behind-the-curtain/NDA-siging/cyborg-talking dev program.
I agree 100% with this. Apple's geek core is at least part of the reason they're growing. It's not easy to convince a barely computer-literate person to leave behind the environment they 'know', but I've converted my wife, my mom, my brother.
This s#@t is leaving a bad taste in my mouth though, and I'm not even a developer.
> The customers' money is in the developers account
It gets worse: some 30% of that money is in Apple's pocket, but 100% of the refund comes from the developer.
Apple gets to keep their cut even after the refund, as per the developer contract, even though the reason for the refunds is because of Apple blocking further deployments from the developer.
I think you are misinformed. Some people read the developer agreement this way and trumpeted loudly, and it is a fair interpretation, but as I understand it Apple only retrieves the 70% they paid the developers from the developers.
I agree, contracts are legally binding. However, there are judgments against contracts in civil court cases merely because the contract is ludicrous. E.g. Apple approved the application, then breached the values of the contract (despite it not being written in the contract) by rejecting the application although the application did not drastically change during it's life-cycle. (The argument may fall better under lacking competency to manage the App Store.) With this FCC ruling, I think an application developer would be insane not to sue for breach of contract by Apple.
Or to put it more succinctly: Apple cannot retain the 30% if it was the cause of removal for an otherwise rules-abiding application. It's known as the doctrine of unclean hands (or possibly may even just be a plain ol' breach of contract).
Does anyone actually document Apple keeping 30%? It is my understanding that this is from a 3rd party interpretation of the contract and that Apple only retrieves the 70% they paid the developers.
If anyone takes this one to court, I'm sure Apple's legal team will try to paint that 30% they take as just a 'fee' to cover the infrastructure costs and that the infrastructure was still used to make the sale even when the customer is asking for a refund. (Not that I agree with what they are doing)
I realize that this is a contrarian view, but (in its aim at being sensational), the headline is incorrect.
Apple has not said that it expects developers to pay any refunds out of pocket. On the contrary, the app-store/itunes agreement tells consumers/users that they are not entitled to any refunds for the apps they purchase.
Again, I realize that this is a contrarian view and every comment on this item (more than 50 comments?) seems to assume that the headline is correct.
However, can any of you point to any evidence that Apple wants developers to refund users for any GV related app.
Yes, the headline is sensationalist and incorrect. What's worse is that I've had to trawl through several hundred comments (I had the misfortune to venture into Reddit territory) before I found someone who noticed.
The actual story is that if any customer who has already purchased one of these apps decided to claim a refund, and that claim is accepted by Apple, then the developer loses the money they made from that sale (70% of the purchase price). That's it.
The only difference between this and any other app, is that these developers are unable to update their apps to fix any existing bugs.
so this has been downvoted for pointing out that the headline is incorrect and that people should look at the facts ?
anyway, I'll say it again. Apple has not said that it expects devs to pay refunds out of pocket. The headline is incorrect. If you disagree, please make the case for your argument instead of anonymous downvoting.
Why is this only newsworthy when Google has to pay the price. Developers have had to pay this price since the inception of the app store. This is one part of the agreement that I think is very unfair, and I am glad it is getting press.
Sure we signed a legal agreement, but still it is a bad deal for us, and we have no alternative.
It should have been newsworthy a long time ago. It's only really hitting the fan now because:
1. They rejected Google who seemed to be on good standing with Apple. (i.e. If they'll reject Google over something obtuse, they'll reject anyone)
2. The FCC has even decided to get involved. If this had not happened, there would have been a large uproar in the 'geek community,' but it might have actually died down. A government body conducting an investigation into this gives the story more legs.
3. It was a number of Apps rejected all at once and all related to the same technology (Google Voice). This gives it more attention due to scale (vs. single apps here and there).
4. The number of stories of stupid AppStore approval decisions has been steadily growing. There is a sort of cumulative affect.
Because Google has the financial and social capital to publicly humiliate Apple if they feel like it. In other words, they are big enough to take revenge without putting their bottom line or brand at serious risk.
You know, flip off your neighbor and only a few people care. Flip off the president and you'll have people demanding you be brought up on treason charges.
I went to a free iPhone Developer Tech Talk where they specifically addressed this policy. Not too many developers in the audience seemed thrilled about it, but it was laid out in front of them. If a customer comes to you for whatever reason asking for a refund, Apple's official policy is that it is your problem to deal with. I specifically made a note about it because I caught the Apple representative's very lawyer-esque response which was to minimize what he said at all about the issue, except to really say "it's your problem".
I might add that I don't think this policy is due to maliciousness on Apple's part. The reality is that trying to handle refunds has a number of logistical nightmares associated with it, namely:
1. Refund standards and laws within contiguous regions that the store serves are inconsistent. For instance, just because you have Apple Store USA, doesn't mean that there can be one consistent refund policy. Now multiply this problem by the number of countries that the store is present in.
2. A great number of customers would use refunds as a way to "try before you buy". The numbers would be significantly high enough to cause a problem.
Now, there's that old saying that you should never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to ignorance. I strongly suspect Apple's approach to this specific case is a simple case of bureaucratic ignorance. I bet that you have a middle-management type implementing a policy that was designed for him/her based upon very specific legal advice. The situation has probably been flagged for attention by the legal department and upper management, but until a policy is designed, they have to address the current situation using known protocols.
If you were at the Tech Talk that I was, Apple apologized for a lot of the iTunes Store stupidity that developers were complaining about online. They also explained why things were the way they were and it wasn't due to Apple being malicious.
1. The developer is on the hook for refunding 100% of the sale price... but Apple takes a 30% cut of the sale price. So the developer is actually _losing_ money to make a refund to the customer.
2. Apple is the cause of the refunds.
Apple is in a win-win situation here (for them) because they are making their own decisions and shrugging off any responsibility or consequences for their actions on to the developers. Wouldn't it be nice to have someone else take the fall and/or answer for the consequences of any actions that you take?
In any case, even if the developer is only on the hook for the 70% of the sale price, Apple is the cause of people asking for refunds. As such, Apple should refund them their money. Afterall, it was Apple's approval process that failed if it allowed some of these products into the AppStore where they were sold for months before Apple 'realized' that they were in violation. (At least according to Apple's official word on the subject)
I don't think developers have a problem with paying a full refund for user-returned apps so much as a problem with paying a full refund for Apple-returned apps (the capriciousness is just the icing on the cake).
You raise reasonable points, but consider in turn that Apple's whole brand is built around providing a friendly experience. They're certainly aware of app store trends at the upper management level, as evidenced by discussions with stock analysts on conference calls about whether the trend towards $0.99 apps means a race to the bottom that could lower the perceived value of the platform.
I agree that it's not as simple as Steve Jobs rolling around in a swimming pool of money cackling at the misfortune of penniless developers, but I find it hard to believe nobody has mentioned to him that the peasants are revolting.
It's important to note that none of Apple's written or implicit policies have changed - it is only people's perceptions that are now changing.
The good part is of this debacle is that, either they will change their horrible attitude and policies, or people will abandon them for greener pastures.