Hacker News Reader

Comment by YooLi | Hacker News Reader

The language problem may have meant that the developer interpreted the milestone as pay upon App Store submission instead of App Store approval. The developer stated in the conversation that if the app was rejected because of his coding mistakes, that he would fix those bugs.

Paying upon approval is ridiculous. I can request a developer write me an app with a buy button that takes the user to my website instead of using Apple's In-App Purchasing. That app would never get approved even though the developer wrote exactly what I asked them to. So I shouldn't pay the developer because Apple denied the app? And no, you shouldn't expect the developer to vet your design before starting development and alerting you of such problems unless you are paying for it. For $800, you are definitely not paying for it.

View on HN

Who would set up a contract releasing a developer from all obligations, prior to app acceptance, on the handwavy notion that the dev would fix it for free outside of contract?

That's just... not how business works. Milestones are organised such that the client can get the things he values with a reasonable probability. Even setting the milestones up as he did is risky, since the dev could just have decided to take 3/4, ship crappy code, and disappear into the interwebs. I guess in this case the client was relying on the reputation system of e-lance and the relatively small amount of money involved, but still.... when I read that he'd agreed to the final payment on such a flimsy acceptance clause I was ready to read a really bad end to this.

Not sure why people are emphasising the money so much. For a dev in NYC $800 is very little. For a guy in China that's a much better deal. Kind of the whole point of using e-lance, no?

I always specify that payment is due on the submission of the app to apple.

So, all of my clients do.

It is the only way iOS development can possibly work.

> The language problem may have meant that the developer interpreted the milestone as pay upon App Store submission instead of App Store approval

Well that's developer's problem, isn't it?

> I can request a developer write me an app with a buy button that takes the user to my website instead of using Apple's In-App Purchasing. That app would never get approved even though the developer wrote exactly what I asked them to. So I shouldn't pay the developer because Apple denied the app?

Yes, that's how contracts work. Welcome to the real world.

How is it your problem that the developer agreed to an impossible task?

"Well that's developer's problem, isn't it?"

Obviously not as the developer got full payment. It's both the developer's and client's problem.

"Yes, that's how contracts work. Welcome to the real world. How is it your problem that the developer agreed to an impossible task?"

Did you miss the part where the client wasn't going to get the app/code unless he paid? As soon as the dev said he needed payment or else the submission was a no-go, it became the client's problem. The "contract", if you could even call it that - good luck to the client trying to seek legal recourse with it, was poorly thought out. "Welcome to the real world."

In the real world, a contract that's impossible to perform is not enforceable.

https://www.inkling.com/read/wolters-kluwer-mbe-bar-prep/mbe...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com