Hacker News Reader

Comment by Dotnaught | Hacker News Reader

Apple's App Store Review Guidelines used to warn against taking complaints to the press:

"If your App is rejected, we have a Review Board that you can appeal to. If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps."

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/2016...

The current version, published on June 13, 2016, omits that statement:

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

View on HN

That guideline was total bullshit anyway. Running to the press frequently helps. Apple doesn't like it, obviously, but "it never helps" was a blatant lie.

Obviously, it's best to exhaust other avenues first, but if Apple is being stupid and won't budge, taking it public can be a great way to get results. I bet it'll work here.

Also, to be fair, guidelines and implied threats like that don't tend to apply to companies that can mobilize PR like Spotify. If you were some small time developer, I could easily see Apple just crushing you for trying to make them look bad.

Even then, it doesn't seem to be true. I've seen plenty of independent developers take their case to the press and it often works in their favor. Worst case they still don't get their way, but I can't recall anyone actually suffering additional trouble for it.

It's about the scale of your app. If you are small fish, going to the press isn't going to accomplish anything. Spotify can afford to press the matter. What worse can Apple do to them? Remove their app from the store? Spotify can afford to litigate against that kind of anti-competition.

It's not anti competition. There are app guidelines which say "you mustn't work around iTunes payments". They exist since many, many years. Spotify chose to comply with them. Apple didn't suddenly change them. It's not anti competitive from Apple if Spotify NOW chooses to call them unfair.

Above that, it's Apple's store, with Apple's rules, on Apple's OS. You either comply with the rules or you don't get to put your app on the App Store.

Such an argument didn't help Microsoft in their anticompetition suits.

If "your" store is directly tied to other companies' livelihoods, and design "your" rules deliberately to hamper competition, there can be a strong argument for an anticompetition suit.

The Microsoft situation is rather different. At the time they didn't make hardware and they where forcing pc manufacturers to preinstall certain applications on their computers thus distorting some markets.

Apple makes their own devices, they are not forcing any OEM to include the App Store on their phones, or Safari or even Apple Music. And they are not forcing consumers to use the App Store either as there are other more popular choices.

Walmart is tied directly to many companies' livelihoods. They still have the option to charge for the privilege of selling thru their stores and those companies have the option to refuse.

If Walmart started preventing their suppliers from advertising their other distribution channels besides Walmart, there would be a huge problem. It appears you misunderstand the complaint.

If the suppliers were promoting their other distribution channels inside Walmart you may have the shadow of a point.

And don't get me wrong, I think Apple should allow Spotify or any one else to tell the customer, inside the App, that there are other ways to pay. I think it will create a healthier environment for all, including Apple, but I was just responding to op's comment.

> Apple should allow Spotify or any one else to tell the customer, inside the App, that there are other ways to pay.

So it is anti-competitive then. It is not transparent to the consumer, all they see is that Spotify price increased 30%, for them its cheaper to subscribe to Apple iStream or whatever that called.

It's absolutely anti-competitive when Apple imposes a 30% tax on services which compete with their own services. If Apple imposed 30% equally across the board it would be one thing, but they get 100% (minus credit card fees) of Apple Music subscription money.

Spotify is just calling it unfair now because Apple has just now started to reject their updates on the basis of this rule, even though Spotify didn't change anything related to this in the update in question.

More specifically, Apple started competing in that specific service domain. Apple wasn't into streaming business but, saw Spotify and entered with a 30% price advantage.

I am wondering - how can Apple be non competitive here? I mean if they charge 30% that money will end up back in their own pockets.

By not forcing Spotify to use apple for the payments? By not saying "You aren't allowed to tell people to pay on your site"?

I don"t think Apple is forcing Spotify to use Apple for payments. The "you are not allowed to tell" seems to be a relatively new thing.

You are forced to use Apple for payments. It's entirely stupid to say "well you don't have to let users pay in the app". Every single user expects to be able to pay by credit card on their phone - the phone is a bloody computer. Imagine if your desktop PC only allowed payments via a Microsoft service that charged the application developer 30%. This would NEVER happen, as the very concept is absolutely ridiculous.

There is no technical reason to not allow an app developer to use an alternative like Stripe as their payment processor. Apple tries to sugarcoat it by using phrases like "seamless integration" for end users, never having to enter their credit card number. The reality is, it has nothing to do with user experience. It is 100% about getting that 30%. Nothing else.

I accept a certain level of a walled garden by buying into the Apple ecosystem. I absolutely do not condone charging developers 30% for payment processing. I buy apps from the store, and developers get shafted just for that. I have never, and will never, perform an in-app purchase without first checking whether I can pay the company directly. I don't care if it's $9.99 in-app, and $9.99 on an external web site. I will ensure that I pay outside the app whenever possible. The problem is that the majority of users do not do this. And they shouldn't have to.

It really hurts the user experience sometimes. Kindle books are an example I hit a lot. Amazon can't do purchases in the app without using Apple's in-app purchase system, which would likely cause Amazon to sell at a loss. They also can't even link to their web site, which of course still allows payments even on the phone. So if I want to buy a book, I have to manually go out of the Kindle app, into Safari, go to Amazon, find the book I'm interested in, purchase it, then go back to the Kindle app and hope it synced. If Apple would be less idiotic here, I could be done with one touch.

And of course Apple has iBooks and doesn't have to worry about losing money on each sale because of a 30% transaction fee.

Apple does impose 30% on all services. Just ask Dropbox, or Amazon.

You are arguing that Walmart shouldn't sell their own brand of soda because it charges Pepsi some percentage to sell theirs.

Ridiculous.

Really, where does Amazon use any Apple payment service?

They don't, because of Apple's 30%. That is the point, everybody is getting the same treatment, some accept it, some do not.

Spotify is now doing the same thing Amazon does with their digital services, so why is Spotify running into trouble?

I don't know as I do not have all the facts, or any context other than what Spotify is claiming. I think they should not be in trouble if what they are doing is the same thing Amazon is. I'm also of the opinion that Apple should get rid of the rule that prevents companies from advertising other forms of payment inside the app.

I was just responding to the original comment that made an incredibly childish argument agains the owner of a store not being able to compete with products from other companies.

Really, childish? You don't have to agree, but no way was that "childish."

Ok. I don't agree. The original argument described literally how every other store (specially big chains) in the world works.

It’s not as simple as that though.

If Apple provided any other way to put content on the device that you purchased, then maybe Apple can run their own store any way they please. In reality though, you’re not choosing the App Store over other stores; you have to use the App Store. This allows Apple to put itself in the middle of a transaction that arguably it has no business being involved in. If a person wants to do X with the device that he or she purchased (in this case, installing a new version of Spotify), there should be a supported way to do that even if Apple does not want to bless that version in their own store.

That is not true. The Play Store, the Amazon AppStore and other smaller stores are all choices the consumer has at the time of purchase, and second there is the Web. You can buy on almost any online retailer with an iOS device and in fact iOS users rank consistently among the top spenders on the mobile web.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/ios-users-outspend-andro...

The problem seems to be that Apple is preventing Spotify from promoting its own method of payment outside the App Store. It certainly seems like bullying to me as it seems like Spotify's speech is being limited (I realize the App Store is not subject to the 1st amendment, but limiting speech still bothers me).

I agree with you completely, I was just responding to the original comment which in my opinion made a poor case defending Spotify, arguing for a monopoly case against Apple.

I think the more relatable case, and the one that should be compared to, is the case against credit card rules that retailers should charge the same price whether or not a credit card is used. There are laws in some countries (and I believe some states in the US but I'm not sure) that prohibit credit card companies to enforce that rule.

> It's not anti competition. There are app guidelines which say "you mustn't work around iTunes payments"

How is ditching In App subscription working around iTunes payments?

> Above that, it's Apple's store, with Apple's rules, on Apple's OS.

They still have to abide to laws

For all the openness Apple claims, developers and companies should be able to talk to press or write blogs about what they want. Apple is benefiting from these apps and tries to silence the voices of arguments. This is pure North Korean kind of rule that only Apple and Kim Jong would approve of.

Openness from for profit companies is a rare beast, and only recently are companies actually starting to approve of openness as they realize its benefits. Putting Apple and North Korea as the only entities that disapprove of running to the press is disingenuous at best.

Does Apple claim openness? They make APIs, developers who make apps for *OS use them and bend to their rules.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com