Hacker News Reader

Comment by TedDoesntTalk | Hacker News Reader

My app has been repeatedly rejected because I do not offer free in-app trials (but offer money-back guarantee on my website) and also do not offer in-apps purchases.

I asked if I offered in-app purchases, would the app be approved?

No, since I offer 3-day money-back guarantee on website-based purchses, I must ALSO offer a free trial in the app.

But I don’t want to offer free trials. I’m ok offering a 3-day money-back guarantee, but Apple says that’s not an option for apps.

They insist that I (1) change my business model from 3-day money back guarantee to free trial and (2) purchase a shit ton more infrastructure to handle the audience that free trials attract (I’ve tried free trial business model and it created a lot of use but no more revenue than 3-day money back guarantee). The money-back guarantee seems to weed out a lot of free loaders, at least in this domain — not necessarily others.

View on HN

Here's the thing: why should anyone trust that you will actually honor this 3-day money back guarantee, or that even if you honor it now that you will continue to honor it in the future? Part of the benefit of the App Store payment system is that it puts the user in control of their trials and subscriptions and lets them easily manage, cancel, and request refunds in a way that is guaranteed. But if your refund form magically disappeared one day, no one would have any recourse against that.

They would have recourse; it’s called a chargeback. If you pay with a credit card and a merchant rips you off or does something devious with your payments, you dispute the charge with your bank. It’s a huge pain for a merchant to deal with chargebacks, so this really wouldn’t be a real problem.

That overhead costs the business and the consumer about 2% in fees compared to Apple’s 30%.

I honestly don’t understand how or why anybody is defending Apple’s 30% cut for all cases. Businesses will just mark up the price of their product and pass the costs on to the consumer. The only party that wins is Apple, so I guess if you own $AAPL you’d defend the cut.

If you pay with a credit card. And the merchant can dispute your dispute. And it would be pretty annoying to have to file a chargeback every time you needed a refund. Last time I did it, I had to fill out a bunch of paperwork and send it to my credit card company.

> I honestly don’t understand how or why anybody is defending Apple’s 30% cut for all cases.

I'm not. I think 30% is overly high. But simultaneously I don't find the original complaint all that convincing.

At least disputing it is an option. Apple’s terms don’t really allow for disputing; “ALL SALES ARE FINAL”.

I bank with Chase, who makes disputing a charge take a few minutes from their website.

As I said in my other comment, disputes are meant for unauthorized charges. If you actually purchased and received a product and you wanted a refund just because you didn't like it, you might not actually win a dispute under those circumstances.

> Apple’s terms don’t really allow for disputing; “ALL SALES ARE FINAL”.

Disputing would be unnecessary under the scenario Apple suggested because there would be a free trial.

It’s easy to dispute in earnest that the app didn’t deliver the functionality it claimed to deliver on the description.

Apple doesn’t offer free trials for non-subscription purchases.

> It’s easy to dispute in earnest that the app didn’t deliver the functionality it claimed to deliver on the description.

Now you're no longer talking about a money back guarantee. Come on, the idea that a credit card chargeback is a valid alternative to having a free trial is ridiculous.

> Apple doesn’t offer free trials for non-subscription purchases.

Wrong.

Non-subscription apps may offer a free time-based trial period before presenting a full unlock option by setting up a Non-Consumable IAP item at Price Tier 0 that follows the naming convention: “XX-day Trial.”

and if apple is handling the payments, they could handle the payback offer too. there is no reason that apple could not support different kinds of payment models if they wanted to

Also, the dispute process is intended for fraudulent/unauthorized charges. You might not actually win a dispute if you purchased a product, it was delivered to you, and you wanted a refund just because you ended up not liking it.

> I honestly don’t understand how or why anybody is defending Apple’s 30% cut

Stockholm syndrome by Apple developers and users.

You say that Apple is demanding you change your business model but actually you're demanding that Apple accomodate yours.

If someone buys your app and doesn't like it then how do they know about the money back guarantee ? Because depending on how visibly you communicate that to the user at best you could make it hard for users to know about it and at worst you could be flat out being deceptive.

Either way Apple takes on the significant chargeback risk for your app which is far more concerning for them than whatever revenue they get.

> Either way Apple takes on the significant chargeback risk for your app which is far more concerning for them than whatever revenue they get.

Gee, if only there was a way for the person to signup directly on the app maker's site, where they would assume all the risk...

You are still placing all of the reputation risk on Apple though.

If this guy builds an app which is forcing users into paying upfront and then hiding a money back guarantee in some hidden text then that is deceptive. And Apple suffers since they allowed the app to be sold on their store.

> And Apple suffers since they allowed the app to be sold on their store.

Well, they could allow the app to be sold outside their store, and then they wouldn't face any reputational risk from it.

I don't really see how this is deceptive either - if the app clearly states that you're paying for it upfront, and what the price is, then how are you being deceived? If you aren't willing to pay for it without trying it, then you can just not use it.

>Well, they could allow the app to be sold outside their store, and then they wouldn't face any reputational risk from it.

Really? Because I'm pretty sure Windows still carries the reputation of being a virus ridden software which was almost always caused by third party programs.

> Well, they could allow the app to be sold outside their store, and then they wouldn't face any reputational risk from it.

The service is sold outside the store (website). The apps to use the service are free on all platforms.

Nothing is hidden. You login and click a button to get a refund. It's easy, quick, no-hassle. And it weeds out a huge amount of free loaders who dont want to enter payment info (and i accept all sorts of 3rd-party payment so you dont have to give my payment processor a credit card number).

Oh sod off. Apple is the one who decided that the only way for users to install apps is through the Apple store. Once they open that up your argument might have some merit.

This is just how buying stuff works typically. You buy it, and if you don't like it, you return it.

And you don’t see a problem with this? The entire purpose Of the App Store is that you shouldn’t have to trust every random developer.

Is yours a b2c or b2b app? Been following all this closely because we were thinking of developing a mobile client for our b2b SAAS.

It's targeted for both audiences. There is a large b2b customer base but also a large b2c customer base. Sorry I dont have a more clear answer for you. I'm not sure if apple interpreted it as b2b to b2c, or if they even care. My guess, after spending months in this review process with 2 different reviewers and multiple rejected submissions and tens of thousands of dollars invested in app development, is they don't look at such things as b2b or b2c.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com