Hacker News Reader

I would hope so. My decision to purchase an iPad was based, in part, on the availability of applications that would likely no longer be available if this policy were to go into effect. As a consumer, this feels completely deceptive. For me, the usefulness of the iPad is being arbitrarily reduced, quite drastically, only after I have purchased it. I may not have purchased it in the first place if not for the functionality I am on the verge of losing.

I understand Apple's position and desire to turn a profit, but these actions feel hostile towards me, as the consumer, and leave a pretty sour taste in my mouth. No matter how this shakes out I would be wary of committing to another Apple platform for fear that they will completely change the rules to make it an untenable situation.

I really hope they back down, but if they don't I would gladly join a class action lawsuit against them.

Personally, I wouldn't ever join a class-action lawsuit. But small claims court sounds perfect...

If Amazon ends up removing the Kindle app over these new policies, I would sue Apple (via my local Apple Store to establish jurisdiction) in small claims court for $139.

The case would be relatively straightforward: I purchased an iPad because it could do everything a Kindle could do as well as more; Apple then caused functionality to be removed, so I would like Apple to buy me a Kindle to replace the functionality.

I've been to small claims court 3 times in my life, and each time won a default judgment because the other side didn't show up. Then, I faxed my judgment to my credit card company, and they promptly credited me (and presumably issued a chargeback to the merchant). This was in Fairfax County, Virginia.

I suspect that Apple will quietly reverse themselves, just like they did on the "apps can only be written in C, C++, and Objective C" last year. But if they don't, your local small claims court provides a wonderful opportunity to make your dissatisfaction known. And it only takes about 4 hours.

Honestly, while I empathize, you would so lose that case. I'm fairly certain that Apple makes no guarantees about functionality other than some very narrow statements (like supporting 3g or WiFi). If you thought the iPad replaced your Kindle, that's on you.

And at worst, Apple will simply say that Amazon voluntarily decided to not abide by the terms of the app store. Any time they are willing they are invited back in.

As much as I despise many of Apple's business practices I think this is a case where they are fairly making their own call. I'd love to see some companies "man up" and say, "Lets go all in on Android, WP7, and WebOS -- screw iOS".

But if he gets a default judgement, that doesn't matter. If he doesn't, he has made his point and cost Apple more than $139 in the process.

It isn't always about winning.

Correct.

Also, small claims court is not based on tort law, it's quasi-contract [1]. So the judge (not a jury) uses the principle of equity. Even if Apple did send someone (unlikely), it's still a question of what is fair, not a question of what is contractually obligated.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-contract

I'd never heard of this, but it is interesting. For example:

"To illustrate, assume that a homebuilder has built a house on Alicia's property. However, the homebuilder signed a contract with Bobby, who claimed to be Alicia's agent but, in fact, was not. Although there is no binding contract between Alicia and the homebuilder, most courts would allow the homebuilder to recover the cost of the services and materials from Alicia to avoid an unjust result. A court would accomplish this by creating a fictitious agreement between the homebuilder and Alicia and holding Alicia responsible for the cost of the builder's services and materials."

As a home builder a great strategy is to work with fraudulent agents, and build homes on a bunch of plots. And then sue the landowners.

The key simply appears to give the appearance that you're working in good faith, but once you do that your entitled to all services rendered, whether or not the "customer" actually wants it or not.

Although since it is small claims, probably not worth it.

But may be worth it for web design companies. Do the same thing -- build crappy websites for companies, charge them for the service and product.

> Personally, I wouldn't ever join a class-action lawsuit.

Please explain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_action#Criticisms_of_clas...

Increasingly, class action lawsuits are being settled with "Coupon Settlements", whereby the attorneys get millions of dollars, and the plaintiffs get -- no joke -- coupons.

http://www.rkmc.com/Coupon-Settlements-Under-Siege.htm

Good luck discouraging Apple from doing something with a one-off small claims court case. :|

Well, when you bought your iPad, weren't you fully aware of Apple's whimsical and capricious nature in dealing with the App Store? Even though Apple are just being assholes here, I have no sympathy for computer-literate people who would willingly take part in an ecosystem which has DRM built into its DNA.

> I have no sympathy for computer-literate people who would willingly take part in an ecosystem which has DRM built into its DNA.

I'm inclined to agree with this, but only until I consider other DRM-laden platforms that I take part in.

I have a Steam account, and have many games tied to that account. Steam is DRM.

I have a Kindle, and I have many books on it. Kindle books use a DRM protected file-format.

The difference betweens these, and Apple's, ecosystems is in the value provided to the user, as opposed to the alternatives. Amazon's Kindle gives me multi-platform access to my books, Steam allows me to install my games on any Windows (or Mac, for some games) computer that I interact with.

Apple, on the other hand, actively assaults the freedom to use your purchased data/products/info on any device that isn't made by Apple.

So while I think you have the right idea about DRM infused systems, I think that the intent of the system should be judged as well, and in a more vital role than the DRM itself.

Class action? Alright, let's see what a self-respecting judge would do in such a situation. Especially when your evidence is that Apple's actions "feel hostile" and "leave a bad taste" in your mouth.

When a customer purchases an Apple device, he/she knows what that Apple does not guarantee continued service. Apple does not contractually promise that apps will continue to be there, it does not promise it will work with developers, it does not promise it won't change the rules, it does not promise that it won't get out of business in six months and close the app store altogether. The customer is aware of all that beforehand but still buys the device.

Many people talk about user rights. The only rights a user has are 1) to sue Apple if the company violates a written contract between itself and the user and 2) to refuse to buy Apple's products in the future.

That's probably part of the plan. If they had started at 15% there would be the same complaints. They would have to back it down to 10% to appease people. If they start at 30% they can back it down to 15% as a public act of concession. It would not surprise me at all if they selling this to major players as an opportunity to raise their prices and make more money for themselves in the process. If Apple wants 15% prices will go up 20%

I've already upvoted you, but it didn't feel like it's enough... because the same I did with the person that, a couple weeks ago, predicted that Apple would require prices inside and outside of App Store to be the same.

IOW: good job.

That only works if Apple doesn't withdraw the current version of the app from the store --- which they're entitled to do.

The EFF got a copy of last year's legalese and posted it[1][2]. Apple reserves the right to withdraw any app for any reason. (The key language is Section 8, which says that they can pull any app at any time for any reason. For good measure, section 4 says that if you don't accept new terms as they are offered by Apple, they can "suspend or terminate" your use of Apple services, including presumably the App Store itself. Section 12 reiterates. There's also language in there that says new terms won't apply retroactively, but their line here is, I think, that they're only getting more stringent about enforcement of existing terms --- and the other sections clearly state that nothing there limits their rights under section 8.)

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/03/iphone-developer-progr...

[2] https://www.eff.org/files/20100127_iphone_dev_agr.pdf

How about if a customer buys an app. Can Apple take it away without reimbursing the customer?

Many of these are free apps (Pandora, Kindle, etc). No refund needed. And if they are the reason you bought your iOS device I'm sure Apple won't be accepting hardware returns past the regular 14 day limit.

Yes, they can, but they have yet to use the app killswitch.

Which they don't do.

Yes, but that scenario leads to customers going 'where's my app gone?', at which point a percentage of them put the App name into Google and guess what pops out...

I fear that they will "back down" to something like a 5% cut for certain types of low margin content. In other words something that looks good in comparison but is still completely unreasonable when compared to the 1% that Visa & Mastercard take. Maybe that's even been the plan all along.

The minute that Visa and Mastercard provide a place to sell your stuff and a fulfillment model that will be a useful comparison.

Apple is already richly compensated for the additional value that their platform provides. The minute you understand that you will be a useful troll.

I haven't looked in to MasterCard's market place close enough, http://www.marketplace.mastercard.com/

It's basically a discount code site with click through links for Mastercard holders. It's closer to a loyalty program than it is to iTunes.

I suspect Apple has something up their sleeve. Nothing stops them from cutting a deal with certain publishers, except maybe accusations of hypocricy. It isn't, but it could be perceived that way.

Perhaps not hypocrisy, but greed and unfairness, yes. It cuts out the folks that Apple doesn't make a deal with an entrenches the major players, simply for Apple to make more profit. That might not be hypocritical, but it's a shitty thing to do.

> Yet they're now threatening to make a number of their more > popular apps economically unviable according to their > creators.

How's that? Or are we again talking pandora and netflix there? In that case I couldn't care less: these are not available in my country, and most likely never will be. Heck, even iTunes Music is not available, only apps.

Now imagine you are a new company just going to start selling subscriptions in iOS app. I'd say you get a lot of convenience with this Apple offering.

As for end user, there is no loss there: just a convenient way to buy subscription with one tap.

All this sounds once again blown out of proportion, everyone is shouting without any effort to really understand what they are shouting about.

> I'd say you get a lot of convenience with this Apple offering

Question is, is that convenience worth 30%? I'd say most companies wouldn't think so.

Most? Ok, those who don't like it are free to setup worldwide payment processing, and get customers to submit their CC details.

But every app developer who has a subscription model for their iOS app already has this in place. And they can do it for a 3% fee from PayPal, where is the other 27% of value?

Ask the guy who made a million dollars off Pixelmator in the first week because his was the featured app on the Mac App Store

That's an app with a one off payment, we're talking subscriptions here. The point being, do you get that 30% (ok 27%) value from Apple when they take it every month. Also, note that I'm not saying I disagree with Apple taking a cut of subscription fees, I just think 30% is insanely high, it should be around 5%. Also, I don't think it should be mandatory.

> As for end user, there is no loss there: just a convenient way to buy subscription with one tap.

What about the [potential] loss of apps like Netflix, Pandora and Kindle? Sounds like a pretty big loss for a possible future convenience.

As for the first two I am not a customer for them and will never be. Losing kindle would suck a bit though.

It's not just that they're taking 30%. It's that they're disallowing authors to charge any more than they do anywhere else, and then taking 30%. So to make the same amount of money on iPhone, you would have to increase your prices everywhere else.

Not allowing to charge more anywhere else is a win for me. Authors who don't like this are free to skip iOS entirely, no?

They probably will. Which was probably the point :P

Seems like you are defending Apple's behavior without any effort to really understand what other people are shouting about.

It's nice that you don't care about Pandora and Netflix. A lot of people do. If those apps were to disappear or mark up their offering by the 40% required to compensate for Apple's take consumers would by definition be worse off.

If Apple's in-app purchasing turns out to be really convenient and worth a 30% cut then that's great for app developers, and they will use it. But I really fail to see how forcing people down that path is at all a good thing.