AppGratis Apple AppStore Appeal | Hacker News Reader

AppGratis Apple AppStore Appeal

jacquesmattheij.com

49 pointsbussetta39 comments

It seems that arguments siding with Apple here are all various flavors of "The rules are the rules". But after you leave grade school, if you still think the rules really are the rules, you haven't been paying attention. Rules at every level, business, government, personal, are all flexible and open to constant interpretation depending on who benefits most from the interpretation.

I'm struck by another recent headline case in this community, that of Aaron Swartz. The rules were capriciously enforced in that case as well. Yet the community largely came out on the side of Swartz (and probably rightly so) then. But it's just another high profile case where rules are never the rules when humans are involved.

Saying that AppGratis should have known not to build their business on the AppStore platform or they should have known not to break the rules is an easy way to ignore the fact that capricious enforcement of rules has consequences far beyond the ecosystem in which they are made. It's a viewpoint that is naive at best and callous at worst.

Which is a bunch of words to say exactly what mattdeboard said: "There's a bunch of Ayn Rand horseshit going on in this thread"

This CEO and his 45 employees now have the freedom of using the money they spent to scam users and devs to create an app that actually adds value to the world.

I really dont care about Apple's rules--all they really do is spell out the obvious intention of the App Store to idiots who need things spoon-fed to them.

> Saying that AppGratis should have known not to build their business on the AppStore platform

This part they should have known. I think the AppStore terms are ridiculous. There's been a lot of noise raised about them but people continue to build apps for the store thinking "nothing bad can happen to me, the terms are strict only because of bad apps."

Stop supporting Apple's walled garden. Stop building for the AppStore. Their terms will change if they can't get any apps.

I agree that the "rules are rules" argument is stupid. Rules are flexible and open to interpretation. But that's no excuse to ignore the control Apple has over their users and the history of them pulling apps from the app store.

My personnal rule to guess whether a business model that rely on the app store is going to get destroyed by apple someday is this : whenever you make money, does apple make money too ? If they don't ( and i mean directly, not because they'll sell hardware thx to your little app) then one day they'll get at you. In the case of appgratis, they were loosing money. Appgratis was redirecting cash from the appstore into their pockets ( i know, that's a very short term way of looking at it).

If your business model is dependant on one other entity for existence, you've got a risky model.

My lemonade stand is dependent on customers not stabbing me in the eye and leaving me to bleed out while they steal all my lemons. That's one end of a continuum. Where do you draw the line? And, more importantly, who gives any of us the right to say "nyaa nyaa toldja so" because someone else drew their line differently?

I would love, just once, for someone to make an argument on the internet without coming up with some ridiculous scenario to make a direct comparison to. It's really not that hard to "draw the line" between assault/robbery and getting your app rejected by Apple.

A line is defined by two points. Doesn't matter how far away the other point is. When you're trying to convince someone of the existence of the line, that's how you do it.

Because you have many customers for that stand, not just one.

If you have many customers and one day one stabs you in the eye whilst stealing all your lemons it shouldn't be the end of you. Such criminal events are normally insured against, most startups would use their home insurance for their lemons, get their PHI to pay for the loss of an eye and its fine.

If however it was your only customer, and he stabbed you in the eye, then your in a worse situation, as when the police come for him, he is unlikely to buy from you again, even more so as he is in possession of a large supply of lemons.

This isn't "nyaa nyaa" this is really good advice. All businesses need to be adaptable to change or shocks. One surefire way of having problems is to have one customer. If you lose them, you loose everything.

If you are writing an App which is only on one ecosystem, which can be shut off at a whim, you need to be well aware of the risks, ensure you play very carefully by their rules and have a good relationship with them.

I have heard of a large company which was dependant on a small firm to make a very esoteric electrical consumable, the large company built a small surplus of them, enough to last 3 months. Cancelled the existing order with an exit clause and demanded their money back. Large firm could continue to operate with their stock surplus, small company couldn't repay the money. Large company swallows small company for tiny price.

Those entites are staying nameless because its a small world.

AppGratis and needless middle-man apps like it are a plague and Apple was good to get rid of them.

One thing I love and respect Apple for is their enforcement of the "spirit" of the App Store, rather than enslaving themselves to the letter of their contracts. Reading that "appeal" from the AppGratis CEO would make you believe that they're a benevolent company helping the entire world, when really it's pretty easy to read between the lines and see that this was a spammy company whose intention was to skim revenue off the top of the huge AppStore pool by harassing people who download the app.

People think that the App Store approval process is so fickle, but really, it's easy: make a good, original app that stays sandboxed and that makes people want to use it rather than you pestering the user, and it will get approved.

I mostly agree with you, but AppGratis and apps like it point out huge problems with the app store. Discovery and marketing sucks. We have an app with IAPs (not coins, but content) and there is no way for our IAP content to be discovered through the store. Simple app discovery is a mess. Trial apps do not exist.

Don't even get me started on the mess that is customer communication. If someone gets a return on your app, good luck finding out any sort of reason. As a developer I want to help each and every customer and make sure they have a great experience, but Apple makes that hard or impossible at every turn.

Why were people using the App though? Surely no one would if it was needless?

I remember laughing that people would have a Tube Status app on their phone, when the webpage surely does the exact same. Fact is its more convenient, so people do it.

People apparently liked this app.

There's two separate issues here, the way Apple handled the rejection, and the policy that led to the rejection.

While Apple handled it badly, Appgratis was breaking the rules and deserved like many other apps to be pulled. The real issue was the paid promotion which Apple is trying to stamp out.

Apple should reject this App eariler. Thats the one thing you can blame them for.

Appgratis started their business 3 years ago, rule 2.25 appeared in Sept 2012.

...but the other rule Apple told them they'd broken, regarding push notifications, has been around pretty much forever. Well, since push went into the platform.

And yes, push notification advertising is the most broken rule on the store, but I always used to make clients who I built apps for understand that at least contractually it wasn't allowed.

This article makes a fair point. Whether AppGratis breaks the guidelines or not - Apple did act in a very unprofessional manner. They could have waited a day or two and given the CEO a right to respond before pulling it.

But this is the risk you take when you build a Business around Apple's app store - any intelligent investors and employees should have known the risks, before committing to AppGratis.

As a sidenote, I'm really struggling to compute how AppGratis has 45 members of staff - whichever way I look at it (developers, sales, accounts) I can't see them needing more than 10.

> As a sidenote, I'm really struggling to compute how AppGratis has 45 members of staff - whichever way I look at it (developers, sales, accounts) I can't see them needing more than 10.

Care to share your back of the envelope calculations on this...?

Definitely back of a cigaratte packet. But they're not writing the apps so it's just a front end, website and some discovery code - presumably the infrastructure is cloud managed...

Maybe if I'm a little more realistic: 5 developers, 5 sales people, 3 managers, 3 to configure / manage the infrastructure, 2 to manage admin and accounts. So 18 people ? Struggling to get to 45...

These free app apps sound a bit like a Bubble - aren't they the Groupon, Living Social, etc. of the day ?

EDIT: For translating the languages everyday are we really saying they would be full time members of AppGratis staff - wouldn't this be outsourced somewhere.

How about creating content in a whole pile of languages every day again and again?

I was told they have a lot of business people working to close deals with the apps developers. Also, doesn't he mention they have a 10 people engineering team? And if you had to that all the people who are in different country to meet with developers all around the world, I think that it can add up to 45…

I'm sure most of those people are there to review apps and write recommendations in various languages.

What they should wait for? What was CEO suppose to do during those 1-2 days? Pivot the business model entirely? What is the reason Apple should give them special threatment? AppGratis can still pivot into something different and submit the app again. Like everybody, I feel sorry for the people, but thats how the life works. It's not like the decision was unfair. Business model they had was pretty crappy anyway. They were trying to skew the Apple's ranking for money.

Perhaps they aren't all full time?

I wonder if he realizes they were taking payments for placements? (A few people mentioned 100k)

people take pleasure taking potshots at apple, the app should not have been in the first place.

google yanked 60k apps, you dont see 60 posts about them

If you do a bit of searching you'll find Google is always yanking apps. Since anyone can upload anything to the Play store Google has to go around and pull the obvious scam stuff down on a regular basis. Something like AppGratis with lots of users and high ratings would not have been touched by Google.

Well, people who are already users of the app can still use it like before, right? So I don't think you can say Apple is endangering the company in the short term.

Sure, it sucks to lose a few days' growth, but it should still be possible to AppGratis to do whatever it is they need to do to be accepted and go on with their life. Or am I missing something?

It may affect their ranking in the App Store charts which, if they get back in the store, could really hurt the company's growth long term.

Bunch of Ayn Rand horseshit going on in this thread.

As an end-user, I rarely, if ever, had to deal with the consequences of an app being rejected or delayed for release. Along the same lines, I feel that Apple has consistently protected the user experience with strict guidelines.

In many ways yes. But there is also the fact that they are protecting you in method similar to a dry country protecting you from alcohol, many apps that should be a choice are simply unavailable.

There is a ton of complete junk in the app store, and it clutters up any search you do. The guidelines don't seem strict to me, most stuff just gets rubber stamped.

I'll jump on the "Ayn Rand" bandwagon.

Apple is free to play BS games like this, yanking long-established companies without any reasonable notice or discussion. The companies are welcome to refuse to deal with Apple because of it (and everyone in this business has heard of similar stories before... you can't claim to be surprised that Apple behaves capriciously with regard to the AppStore).

But once we get past the "Ayn Rand" philosophy, I want to point out that everyone is hurting themselves. Apple is hurting themselves by raising the perceived RISK of their marketplace in the eyes of developers. Developers are hurting themselves by playing along with this game (although, to be fair, there is money to be made). I wish everyone would just grow up (starting with Apple).

The AppStore is direct retail, even if we are disinclined to view it that way.

Walmart won't guarantee shelf space for stuffed unicorns just because a company makes them. It won't guarantee shelf space tomorrow just because a company has some today.

Apple offers the same standard terms to everyone. Those who think they make business sense can agree. Those who don't are free to pursue other options.

The inconsistency in Apple's interpretation and implementation of Appstore policies is a known risk. The dominance and dependence relationship between Apple and developers is spelled out clearly and multiple times. Your good business decision to enter the app store is irrelevant when making my business decision.

Does somebody know if appgratis informed its users that apps were paying to be featured?

I would say that this is an important point to find out if this can qualify as an ethical business model

I had used it a while ago for a few days. I had no idea that people paid to get a app listed. I figured they made money by affiliate links. But everything they recommended and I tried was pretty shitty. So it all makes sense now.

Shame on you for trusting apple (or any other vendor) with your business. Develop for open platforms or be ready for things like this to happen.

I can't follow the "breaking the rules" argument in this thread: They were talking to several people at Apple and were told everything is ok.

Additionally Apples rules are not clear guidelines, everybody is in some kind of validation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com