Apple can terminate developer account without a reason by mistake
twitter.com
twitter.com
If you're banned from a nightclub, it sucks.. but there are many, many other nightclubs (unless you live in a place small enough to have only one... then it sucks too).
If you're banned from apple, you basically have only google play left, and considering that most people specifically develop for one platform or another, it's usually not just losing half your customer base, but sometimes losing all of it.
Imagine having a potato farm, being able to sell potatos only to walmart, and walmart baning you from selling via them...
But I don’t see any negative consequences of passing a law saying a platform must provide a reason with documentation if a paying user is banned. There also must be an independent review board that is answerable to the board of directors. But not the CEO.
On the other hand, it came out in the Epic case that there is “no duty to deal”. Meaning you can’t force a company to do business with anyone as long as it isn’t for a protected reason.
The government can’t and shouldn’t force a company to do business with someone as in the Walmart case. Would you want the government to force a health or drug store to sell cigarettes?
Accepting payment makes some obligations more real. As a free user you accept whatever tos apple throws at you and that's it. As a paying customer you buy a service, with many protections that includes. (depending on your country)
A faulty product that simply doesn't work can totally be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore".
For example in Australia ACCC says that sure, you're entitled to a refund as one of the options when a product/service fails. But that doesn't stop you from being able to claim damages or losses even if you're fully refunded. https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees...
Actually I'd love to see the result of involving ACCC in this situation if someone in Oz gets terminated. They can be very detailed in their analysis if they're interested.
Also, paying for the right to develop on Apple platforms is hardly a service.
> You hereby appoint Apple and Apple Subsidiaries (collectively “Apple”) as: (i) Your agent for the marketing and delivery of the Licensed Applications to End-Users
Apple is providing devs a service.
>ACCC rules apply to products and services.
Over here in Europe consumer protection laws generally do not apply to contracts between businesses. i.e. A photographer buying a camera for their business use would not necessarily be covered.
Bringing stolen goods back and arranging them as they were before would often be a sufficient defense against a theft charge, as an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the item is often a necessary element of the crime. This would presumably also reduce your burglary charge to trespass.
https://vistacriminallaw.com/borrowing-theft/
https://www.floridacriminaljustice.com/blog/2017/08/theft-is...
In fact, a few of my indie developer friends have gotten their monthly App Store payments held up by Apple while Apple investigates so-called "unusual activity" (which turned out to be nothing).
I'm not really sure how that's relevant here, we're discussing hypothetical regulation that scarface74 is proposing.
>In fact, a few of my indie developer friends have gotten their monthly App Store payments held up by Apple while Apple investigates so-called "unusual activity" (which turned out to be nothing).
This is likely unavoidable as Apple is subject to a number of AML regulations.
Never in my life has my bank withheld a payment. And I've never had a job paycheck held back because of "suspicious activity".
> Amex puts people in “financial review” and locks your account
Amex doesn't pay you; you pay Amex.
I'm talking about companies refusing to pay what they already owe you. App Store payments to developers are for app sales that are already long completed, and Apple has already taken the money from App Store customers.
Either your bank is particularly lenient or your transactions are particularly boring. Most paychecks definitely fall into the "particularly boring" category.
OTOH App store transactions are a relatively big money laundering risk, you are receiving payments from large amounts of different people.
To a longtime indie developer???
We're not talking about huge sums of money here. One month's income for a little indie App Store developer. More or less (probably less) the amount of a software engineer's monthly paycheck.
And what's Apple's "evidence" for money laundering in these cases anyway? It always turns out to be nothing, and payments are eventually restored, but the developer is deprived of cash flow for a month or several with no explanation ever.
Anyway, for developer accounts that Apple terminates (again without explanation), I believe that Apple simply confiscates the money and never pays what it owes to the developer.
>And what's Apple's "evidence" for money laundering in these cases anyway? It always turns out to be nothing, and payments are eventually restored
Unfortunately, they're by law not allowed to discuss these things.
>Anyway, for developer accounts that Apple terminates (again without explanation), I believe that Apple simply confiscates the money and never pays what it owes to the developer.
Unlikely.
If the bank thinks you are laundering money, there are going to be investigation.
I once unknowingly deposited a fake money order in my checking account. I was naive and I fell for the old “we need to pay for three months rent with this money order and can you refund the difference”.
Before I even called the bank once it dawned on me that it was probably fraudulent, the bank had already put a hold on my account.
If Apple think you are working in a company that is under sanctions, they are going to verify that you aren’t.
What do you mean exactly by "deposit"? These are automatic deposits from Apple or from an employer.
A ton of people make >$120K a year and receive >$10K in payments per month. It's not unusual at all.
> I once unknowingly deposited a fake money order in my checking account.
How is this relevant? There are no fake money orders here.
> If Apple think you are working in a company that is under sanctions
Again, how is this relevant to longtime indie devs?
Whether it’s unusual is subject to a Risk Assessment. NACHA happily sells Risk Assessment Workbooks to your bank’s Compliance Department [1].
[1]: https://www.nacha.org/products/ach-risk-assessment-workbook
Health/drug stores are not a monopoly (or a duopoly if you count google, but still a monopoly for apple users).
If you could get apps for iDevices on "every street corner", one of them not selling apps from that specific developer wouldn't matter either.
No one would sign a lease that said "we can kick you out at any time," but that's what developers are agreeing to with Apple.
It would require Apple to more selective up front about who they chose to do business with, but I think that would be a good thing, because it would give developers more stability once they were "in."
That's a bizarre argument. You could argue similarly against speed limits, because next the government will force you to drive in reverse or something.
Also, competition law seems to be way too simple. We should have at least 10 similar-sized competitors in this field, yet we are stuck with this duopoly.
So App Store is a monopoly on Apple devices, and on Android based devices there's plenty of choice ranging from bad for privacy (Play store) to fully FOSS-only (F-droid).
On iOS, if you don't publish the app on App Store, 0% of your users will be able to install it, because there is simply no alternative.
For us (well, atleast me), getting an apk from github is not a problem, also not clicking three times to update the app... "normal users" usually don't do this, and some even get scared at the scary messages on phones, warning users about "alternative sources" and "play protect" and other stuff.
I'm not really arguing that this is a great solution for everyone (or that sideloading should magically mean that Android isn't being noncompetitive), just pointing out that even insufficient solutions can really make a really big difference for some people.
I want the sideloading and updating experience on Android to be better, and there are some very real frustrations that come from that -- including that there are great apps like NewPipe that I can't really recommend to everyone I know because of the complexity of installing them. But in contrast, I don't think I could even use iPhone myself because these apps are so essential to me, so I'm grateful that at least I have a phone where it's possible for me to jump through these hoops.
To your point though and in regards to the person you were replying to, you're right that none of that changes anything about whether Play Store has what is essentially a monopoly over other Android storefronts. I would love to live in a world where I could recommend NewPipe to people without feeling like I also need to borrow their phone and sit down with them and help them install it.
----
> For us (well, atleast me), getting an apk from github is not a problem
Pro tip which you might already be aware of, but F-Droid supports custom repositories, and the NewPipe team maintains their own repository that gets immediate updates. Installing NewPipe from F-Droid directly isn't something I would recommend because the app needs to be updated so frequently and F-Droid is slow to pull in those changes. But if you use their custom upstream repo, you can still have F-Droid manage the updates/installation while getting basically direct updates from the Github repo.
This would of course be better if Android allowed the F-Droid store to auto-update apps, but...
I vaguely remember hearing that at some point Android was going to allow this, but then I haven't heard anything since and my version of F-Droid still requires manually clicking an install button, so I'm not sure if Google ever actually followed through.
99% of app users get an app by clicking on a link that was sent/recommended to them.
So more accurate to say "100% of users will never find your app on a store if it's not directly on a store."
I work on health/social service apps for state and local municipalities. The conversation about putting them on the stores ends when we explain that the stores don't allow such apps. Which is a blessing in disguise ans PWAs are far superior in most every way.
Most people just look at the "trending" stuff in the main playstore window, or search the store with general keywords (eg "menstrual calendar"), and try the first few hits.
Apple simply banned them. That’s why I cannot equivocate Apple and Google’s market dominance, Apple is just so much more obscene and over the top, Google at least has some more shame.
Epic sued Google too. They're going to trial in January 2023.
But then they weaponize inconvenience. You can run the app, but if you want Google Play, they stick you with their terms. SafetyNet blah blah. If you don't, the bank owns the copyright on the bank app so third party devs can't give ordinary users a convenient legal way to install it.
So third party alternatives get friction on purpose and can't gain users. And without users people don't develop native apps.
Compare what it would take to get iOS apps to run on a Linux phone.
Blackberry, Jolla and several other Linux + Android attempts have proven that being easy isn't enough.
You can, of course, access your bank from a browser.
For now. Do you think the W3C would resist if banks tried to standardise a way for sites to determine if you are running with Secure Boot enabled? This would be part of a system to prevent browsers from spoofing their user agent string / version number.
They ignored the protests of those opposed to DRM, and I can't imagine there being as much objection to banks trying to protect users from browser vulnerabilities and kernel-level keyloggers.
Of course some Free Software advocates would again "cry wolf", predicting that banks would start to block requests from "unapproved" OSes, but those claims would be dismissed as scaremongering, right up until it started happening (and the wolf started eating their sheep).
Linux on phones isn't even at "good enough," let alone compelling.
Its interesting because you can really see how we end up with dictators in politics. Doesn't need to be a coup, people voluntarily give it up for small conveniences.
Alternatively, it's not that important and as such the market being a "fiefdom" is irrelevant. In which case suggesting people switch to alternatives is also irrelevant because it simply doesn't matter.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Even if you think that the status quo is problematic, I don't think that suggesting that consumers switch to something that is terrible is a pragmatic solution.
And yeah, Meta sucks.
Apple can decide to throw all that investment down the drain.
Ha, wow. "I do not like regulation, until it affects me, then I love it."
> Imagine having a potato farm, being able to sell potatos only to walmart, and walmart baning you from selling via them...
What you are talking about here is the dream of Libertarians.
It’s a very Libertarian stance that give consumers the power to make informed decisions.
Notice I did not say that the government should have oversight on the process that private companies are allowed to ban users. I said the independent review board should be answerable to the board of directors not the CEO.
What is your standard for judging where transparency should be legally required or not?
If Apple is going to buy Netflix they may buy it and shut it down. Or at least not let it on the Apple platform. That might be important to know if I’m going to dedicate myself to the ecosystem.
“When it affects my profit!”
Edit: Here's the intro to article 22:
> The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.
That’s why for people who have issues with security, they can also add their redress number to flights
> The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.
The nanosecond bad actors (e.g., mega corps) can have apps exclusively in these alt stores, that’s when those corps will move, reinsert their anti-consumer code that Apple makes them take out, and have that be the only choice. And these mega corps will tell consumers about what’s in there as much as they used to before Apple added the mandatory disclosures which is — not disclose at all.
Also, it’s much easier to make peace with Apple choosing what can be snapped into a modular PDA (personal digital assistant) if you stop distinguishing between hardware and software as if that distinction matters for an appliance, and consider it all firmware and all part of a singular trusted digital experience: “Don’t make me think.”
Today, consumers can choose trusted curation and full integration (iDevices), or non-curated and unbundled (countless brand + Android OS options).
If alt app stores happen, consumers will lose this choice, because nobody will be left counter balancing the exploiting corporations’ power. The race to monetizing exploitation happening before Apple stepped in will continue apace.
I don't have any skin in the game in terms of Apple anymore. I use Android these days, and I use F-Droid, and all the apps on it are FOSS and possible to audit. If privacy/security is a concern, the only winning move is not to play with closed source OS and firmware on devices.
Side-loading and installing from binary blobs is the counter-balancing choice: don't use any third-party app store, pick-and-choose what you run. Not to do any disservice to F-Droid, it's an excellent option, but only doing what you could do by hand.
> Today, consumers can choose trusted curation and full integration (iDevices), or non-curated and unbundled (countless brand + Android OS options).
Or option 3: curated and integrated by buying an Android phone that comes bundled with all kinds of Google applications.
The 3 major computing platform vendors Apple, Microsoft, and Google are 3 of the 4 largest corporations in the world by market cap. They are the corporate power with no counterbalance.
If your worry was founded, these apps already wouldn't be on Apple devices because they'd be androind-only
This means the megacorps “have to” play nice on iOS in order to serve up monied audiences to their advertisers.
If exploiting corporations were so all-powerful, why do they have to release on Apple devices at all? Why wouldn't they just exclusively release it on platforms they can exploit? Because consumers demand it. Those same consumers can demand it on the Apple App Store.
A better comparison is Google Play versus F-Droid. Yup. The overwhelming majority of people get their utility apps from Google Play still. However, for anyone who cares to do so, there is F-Droid, Amazon, and plenty of others that offer more than just utility apps, including Epic Games app where countless folks download Fortnite, if you want to bring it back to video games and the success or misinformed lack thereof with third-party platforms.
With the likes of F-Droid, everything on it is free, mate. It is free as in beer and free as in freedom, it's FLOSS. Money doesn't enter the equation, but everything is possible to audit.
Like I told another user: If you care about these things, the only winning move is not to play. Ergo, it's there for anybody who cares to seek it out.
Let's bring it back to games again. Fortnite was removed from the App Store. You bet that Epic Games would have released their own Epic Games app just like on Android to get iOS users playing Fortnite again. If you don't think that it would have been a huge success just like on Android then I can only laugh. So many young folks switched from iOS to Android to keep playing Fortnite.
The story is on the front page of Hacker News and also getting spread on Twitter.
Yes, because they are a powerful duopoly.
Also why world governments are considering and/or passing antitrust regulations.
Mobilizing against $2 trillion corporations is a years long struggle, and those corporations fight back with all of their resources. People do care, but there's a massive power imbalance.
They're a powerful duopoly because of their wealth and deep connections to world governments.
Its horrible for Apple/Google to have this much power - I agree 100%. I don't know a solution. Its likely this was an algorithm gone crazy and not malicious.
The removal of ddos protection all the while smiling cause you know what will happen right after it gets removed is 100% malicious. And we, the tech community, appear completely ok with it.
You have to admit it feels hypocritic.
So, my HN account would be exempt but people who hire and self-promote on HN could appeal, but not for any ban, only ones done without cause or where the cause is eithet not a violation of ToS or when it is false and the banned user can prove it.
After all, commerce is regulated and allowing users to derive commercial value from a service is providing a commercial sevice.
This will allow service providers to define ToS and ban users who are in violation while allowing the public to engage in commerce and be treated fairly. This includes brick and mortar businesses who refuse service, instead of banning service refusal on discrimination of protected categories, require explicit and demonstrable violations of ToS which can be criticized for violation of other laws.
Just saying this is nothing new, they've been banning developers and apps for no reason since the beginning of the app store.
I woke up, many people did not. I still use apple products, but I do not trust them one bit, so my use of their products look much different than the average user.
My evaluation of the products when I buy them:
- has a decent customer base, proven track record and reliable?
- accomplishes what i want it to do?
- don’t cross extreme personal ethical borders? (think of actively funding conversion therapies kinda extreme)
Or I like US Healthcare 'because I have coverage'.
I mean, I get it, at the same time, you could very quickly fall outside the 'in group'.
Sideloading destroys that, as it then becomes possible to take actions to subvert your own device.
This is to say nothing about OEM-bundled spyware like in Samsung-land.
For example, Epic's suit wasn't thrown out of court immediately, so I just don't see how other decisions could not be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
Also, Epic lost, though the case is still out on appeal.
Things are not going to change unless there’s some kind of a revolt.
And I consider myself Apple fanboy.
This is not news then! We don't even know whether or not it was a mistake.
Afterwards it turned out that it was a mistake, but what about all the problems this has caused the developer?
https://mjtsai.com/blog/2016/10/10/apple-and-kapeli-respond/
I would recommend reading everything before making a judgment. The developer (not a US citizen) did record a phone call he had with Apple, and the recording did seem to contradict some things Apple told the press.
Anyway, the ultimate outcome of this story is that the developer does still have an Apple account (not sure if it's the same one or a newly created one) and continues to sell his app Dash for Mac to this day, code signed with an Apple Developer ID certificate and notarized by Apple.
Also, Dash returned to the iOS App Store for a period of time after this story, though the developer eventually decided to retire that version.
I don't think anyone blames Apple for investigating the situation, because the good account and bad accounts did use the same credit card. The problem is that the investigation seems to have been rather superficial, and they terminated the Dash account without giving the Dash developer a chance to respond first. And the people in charge of terminating accounts (if there were even people involved, as opposed to automation) apparently had zero knowledge that Dash was a well-known and well-respected app in the Apple developer community. Also, there appears to be no evidence that the review fraud was related to Dash specifically (does that app even have any competitors?) as opposed to the apps published by the non-Dash account. And there is evidence that the apps for the other account were written by a different person. (The Dash developer say he helped a relative pay for an Apple developer account with his card.)