Apple Expects Google Voice App Developers To Pay Refunds Out Of Pocket
gizmodo.com.au
gizmodo.com.au
It's important to note that none of Apple's written or implicit policies have changed - it is only people's perceptions that are now changing.
The good part is of this debacle is that, either they will change their horrible attitude and policies, or people will abandon them for greener pastures.
Until we live in a world where every developer has all the money they could ever want there will always be developers for a platform with over 30 million potential customers.
As long as the iPhone is subsidized by phone carriers, Apple's cash cow will be hardware sales. It won't be until the smartphone market reaches a certain level of saturation that Apple will have an incentive to focus on the App Store as a revenue generator. And when that happens, I bet they will be a lot less mercurial with their developers.
Apple is treating the developers like crap now. Whether we classify this as outright abuse or just as sever neglect is up for debate, but it's hard to argue that Apple is doing a good job of treating the devs well.
So the developers are supposed to patiently sit by and just 'take' the abuse/neglect waiting for Apple to 'come around' or 'see the light?' I'm sorry, but you can't run a small business based on faith that another business will stop treating your contributions as crap and start treating you with more respect. And even when that business (Apple) decides to respect you more how long until the winds blow the wrong way and you're back to where you started... being treated like crap.
Even a large company like Google with a lot to offer and a good existing relationship with Apple is being pushed around with this AppStore crap. How exactly would you expect to be treated as a smaller business with little to no leverage with Apple?
Developers, maybe some. Customers? not until there is a comparable phone on the market. Which there isn't.
If just ten independent developers with interesting apps ported to another platform (doesn't have to be to Android, but of course I'd prefer that) in a coordinated fashion, they'd get immense press and have some real impact.
The app store is a nice value add, but it's hardly instrumental in the iPhone success story.
If it isn't, why is the iPhone tagline "there's an app for that?"
Kids loving playing games so much on their parents phones that Nintendo actually acknowledged the iPhone as a competitive threat on their earnings call.
Statistically, 75% of iPhone users use apps, which is 5x more than other phone users. Nielsen: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/iphone-use... .
Be careful about assuming things. Apple's iPhone is important because for the first time ever there is an incredibly simple, usable interface to a full-powered computer.
How successful was the iPhone before the app store existed? I'd say very.
>> "Apple's iPhone is important because for the first time ever there is an incredibly simple, usable interface to a full-powered computer."
OR
Apples iPhone is important, because it's the first usable portable interface to the web.
"For free applications, only about 20 percent of users return to use the app the first day after they download it, and then it quickly drops off from there. By 30 days out, less than 5 percent are using the app. The chart for paid apps shows a slightly steeper fall-off rate."
The iPhone isn't effectively utilized by the vast majority of its users, who value its cachet more then its applications ecosystem. As sibling points out, all the evidence you need is in the overwhelming success of the device before the app store existed.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/19/pinch-media-data-shows-...
>> "because they want their apps to access the 'net everywhere, not just wi-fi spots."
This may be true more in the US, if you don't have many wifi spots. Here in the UK, you get free data (3G and wifi spots). The wifi spots cover most towns and cities, restaurants etc.
In 5 years we'll probably have wifi everywhere, so the whole thing will be a little redundant.
Well, isn't it the connectivity they want then, and not the App Store specifically?
Also, I have noticed that the people that do have Iphones use every opportunity to 'flash' them.
Probably a big part of the appeal of the Ipod touch is that it looks like an Iphone...
That does suck, but it has little overall effect on the usefulness of the phone to me as a portable computer. When I bought my first iPhone, there was no App Store at all, and Apple was actively stating that there was not going to be any such thing. The value proposition was OK then, and it's OK now.
As far as people flashing their iPhones around conspicuously, I really wouldn't know anything about that. I use mine in public all the time, and one of the things I don't like about the experience is the way I completely lose awareness of my surroundings and people nearby.
That's a new one, never even thought that that might be the case. Interesting!
I've had it while on the phone and driving 'on autopilot', and since then I've become a lot more careful about using the phone in the car. (headset only anyway of course, but still). One day I missed my exit completely, and wasn't aware that it had happened until 20 minutes later (still in the same conversation). Quite a good lesson.
or maybe they just take every opportunity to use them
or maybe they just take every opportunity to use them
or maybe they just take every opportunity to use them
I really don't understand why no other manufacturer is capable of producing something that gets close to the iphone. Even less since android is available as a platform. Sure, there still is the lack of multitouch, but I really don't get why nobody can come up with a serious device.
Because they're idiots who won't stand up to the tin-pot dictators at the mobile carriers.
The secret to Apple's success is actually quite similar to the secret to Microsoft's success: they've been fortunate at having incompetent competition.
Also, as you said, nothing has changed. Developers trying to make money are businesses first and foremost. They should leave their fanboy-ism at home when they set up shop. The people that are complaining the most about getting screwed by the App Store, as jws points out in another comment in this thread, are the ones that probably didn't even bother reading the contract between Apple and them, let alone getting a lawyer to give them specific legal advice about it for them.
I know that the barrier of entry for starting a business is quite low these days, but that doesn't mean that standards for professionalism should drop correspondingly. Part of being a professional is understanding what your obligations are. These obligations are outlined in contracts. Contracts are the emergency manuals that get pulled out in case something goes wrong. They dictate what you agreed to do in those situations. You wouldn't haphazardly sign an emergency evacuation plan. You'd probably read it over and try to understand if it all made sense. Treat your contracts the same way. They're all about corner cases, so they're a big deal.
But that doesn’t make it right or fair. I’m not one of those “everything should be open” types but Apple should at least be required to publicly spell out its terms. In the example given in the article a developer had their app approved and it was actually in the store for months. Apple then pulled it months later and refused to even give the reason why (which in turn prevented the developer from remedying the situation). Then turned around and said the developer was responsible for dealing with the disgruntled customers even if it meant refunding their money (which they'd have to do since they had no way to remedy the situation).
Further I'd suggest these discussions have a precedent in our society. Society recognizes the fact that some things are simply too morally wrong to be allowed. Even by contract. If I sign a contract saying I allow you to do anything you want to me you still can't beat me to death with a baseball bat. Though this is obviously not in the same realm of heinousness as that the precedent is the same. You can't legally indemnify yourself against that which society won't tolerate.
Additionally, Apple has always remained consistent on their position on both revocation and refunds. It is public in that developers are told about this and must agree to the terms before joining. That's about as public as is necessary in my books.
So this should not be news to the developer. Let me bring up the relevant parts of the contract. I've skipped most of the examples because the last one is so broad as to cover the rest.
iPhone Developer Program License Agreement
8. Revocation
You understand and agree that Apple may cease distribution of Your Licensed Application(s) and/or Licensed Application information or revoke the digital certificate of any of Your Applications at any time. By way of example only, Apple might choose to do this if at any time:
.
.
.
(l) Apple has reason to believe that such action is prudent or necessary.
Also, Schedule 1, and 2 (which I believe is unique on a per-country basis) outlines the legal obligations for refunds.
EXHIBIT A (to Schedule 1)
4. Warranty: You must be solely responsible for any product warranties, whether express or implied by law, to the extent not effectively disclaimed. The EULA must provide that, in the event of any failure of the Licensed Application to conform to any applicable warranty, the end-user may notify Apple, and Apple will refund the purchase price for the Licensed Application to that end-user: and that, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, Apple will have no other warranty obligation whatsoever with respect to the Licensed Application, and any other claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs or expenses attributable to any failure to conform to any warranty will be Your sole responsibility.
Moreover, I’m very libertarian leaning. I DON’T believe in a strong regulatory government. All I’m asking for is the most basic of protections. I don’t have a problem with Apple setting whatever terms they want but they have to (a) lay out the terms and (b) enforce them consistently.
Also, on the warranty, I'd argue the quote you used doesn't apply to the situation in the article. The language specifically says...
"The EULA must provide that, in the event of any failure of the Licensed Application to conform to any applicable warranty, the end-user may notify Apple, and Apple will refund the purchase price for the Licensed Application to that end-user"
But this wasn't a "failure of the Licensed Application" in that the application continued to work fine and had met Apple's requirements to the best of the developers ability to do so.
But again, the question is not “what is legal now” it’s “now that this new concept exists what should we as a society require of it”. That’s the discussion being had. Is what Apple’s doing right and should society allow it and if not what standards should be set so that our future isn’t bogged down by companies acting in the same way Apple does.
I don't know what society you live in. But my society has Wal-Mart in it.
You think those Wal-Mart folks would hesitate to drop your product from their shelves without giving you a reason? You think they are shy about making their suppliers sign a scary one-sided contract and then holding them to it?
And the App Store is not made from Soylent Green. In the grand list of potentially unfair business practices I doubt this even rates. Compared to what the music industry does to bands every single day, this contract is sunshine and birdsong.
Alas, if you don't like Apple's contract terms you're stuck doing business with their competitors. Fortunately, they're easy to find. One of them is probably clinging to your leg right now.
Society is what we make of it and the worst possible excuse for letting an injustice go is because “it’s not like there aren’t other injustices in the world” Also, I think you are unfair to Walmart. I’ve heard of Walmart making almost unreal requirements of their vendors (include little tools with things that need to be assembled, adopt RFID without a price increase, etc…) But in each of those cases they actually MADE A DEMAND. Apple’s not even making demands here they’re just kicking apps to the curb with no explanation.
(You’re probably also being a little unfair to the record companies but that would lead to a debate of what they actually provide to artists and this really isn’t the place)
So if your plan of action involves convincing anyone but a diehard geek that Apple's actions rise to the level of moral injustice... we've got a lot of work to do. There are a lot of people crying "moral injustice". We'll have to stand in line.
Actually, yes I do hesitate. WalMart makes its demands up front. You know exactly what you're getting into when you sign with Walmart. It doesn't change its behavior after you've signed the contract, or make capricious decisions. If something needs to change, Walmart lets the supplier know, and why it needs to change, and how it needs to change. Apple doesn't even give you an email.
1. Call Apple out on the contract clauses. See how they will respond. This specific case points out a derivative scenario they may not have accounted for. When they revoke an app because they feel it is "prudent" to do so, and the developer is left footing the bill.
2. Small iPhone developers should band together and form a guild or union. This guild, like the Writer's Guild, can yield considerable clout. Right now the problem is that most developers cannot afford to pay a lawyer to fight these matters. By teaming up, they could form a unified front and not only deal with Apple via lawyers, but possibly deal with them directly. It's easier for Apple to deal with one spokesperson on behalf of say, 5000 independent developers, than for them to try to deal with even a dozen ad-hoc cases.
Though I'm sure if you popped over to someplace like the AppleInsider.net forums there would still be a ton of people trying to defend Apple here. My feelings are the entire 'App Store Approval Process' issue boils down to this:
If Apple feels that they are so right _and_ justified to pull such stunts with the App Store, then why are they in many cases hiding behind some 'iron curtain' of corporate bureaucracy? Why not just come out and say, "These Google Voice apps duplicate 'x' functionality. Sorry, but we won't allow it." If their approval process is anything but blindly throwing darts at the wall, then why not _publish_ their standards so that iphone application developers _know_ what the do's and dont's are so they can navigate the minefield successfully? If those standards miss something, just amend them and apologize to the developer community for overlooking that aspect. But Apple is not doing _any_ of these things.
The developers for the AppStore are Apple's business partners on some level. They are obviously making Apps as part of their own business plans, but they are providing utility and functionality to Apple's product. Apple's product is _more valuable_ as a result of all of the various AppStore applications out there. Yet Apple seems to want to treat their business partners with disdain.
Personally, I would have a hard time trying to justify why I would want to do business with Apple after seeing the way it treats other companies that are doing business with it.
That's almost word-for-word what they did say. The problem is inconsistency -- there are tons of apps that could be, but have not been, rejected on the same grounds.
The developers accepted a contract agreeing to refund money in certain circumstances, the circumstance have occurred, it is time for them to uphold their end of the contract.
The sales have been rolled back, the customers' money is in the developers account (as sympathetic as "pocket" sounds, if they can carry the money in their pocket then this is about very little money at all), the customers get their money back.
I think perhaps everyone that learns this lesson does it the hard way. Understand the contracts you enter into.
(I learned mine at the hands of Digital Equipment Corporation. For "good will" reasons I agreed to supply a specific key person for a specific nearly completed project until it was finished for a specific sum. All good, until it became in Digital's best interests to not complete the project on time and get more money from the customer for another year's work. I'm sure the Digital managers had many a good laugh that year.)
I understand Apple has business contracts. I understand they are out to make money. All we're asking is that they stop being such profound douchebags in the process. All we're asking is that they stop shitting on the very people who helped build their success. All we're asking is they stop FREAKING people out with their man-behind-the-curtain/NDA-siging/cyborg-talking dev program.
This s#@t is leaving a bad taste in my mouth though, and I'm not even a developer.
It gets worse: some 30% of that money is in Apple's pocket, but 100% of the refund comes from the developer.
Apple gets to keep their cut even after the refund, as per the developer contract, even though the reason for the refunds is because of Apple blocking further deployments from the developer.
Harsh circumstances.
See http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10205293-37.html and skip down to the "Updated 4:00 p.m." at the bottom of the article where the journalist adds the response from Apple's representative.
Are there sources where developers document being charged 100%?
I guess any increase in returns from this Google Voice palaver will get highlighted if more than the 70% is taken from the developer's account.
Apple has not said that it expects developers to pay any refunds out of pocket. On the contrary, the app-store/itunes agreement tells consumers/users that they are not entitled to any refunds for the apps they purchase.
Again, I realize that this is a contrarian view and every comment on this item (more than 50 comments?) seems to assume that the headline is correct. However, can any of you point to any evidence that Apple wants developers to refund users for any GV related app.
anyway, I'll say it again. Apple has not said that it expects devs to pay refunds out of pocket. The headline is incorrect. If you disagree, please make the case for your argument instead of anonymous downvoting.
The actual story is that if any customer who has already purchased one of these apps decided to claim a refund, and that claim is accepted by Apple, then the developer loses the money they made from that sale (70% of the purchase price). That's it.
The only difference between this and any other app, is that these developers are unable to update their apps to fix any existing bugs.
Sure we signed a legal agreement, but still it is a bad deal for us, and we have no alternative.
1. They rejected Google who seemed to be on good standing with Apple. (i.e. If they'll reject Google over something obtuse, they'll reject anyone)
2. The FCC has even decided to get involved. If this had not happened, there would have been a large uproar in the 'geek community,' but it might have actually died down. A government body conducting an investigation into this gives the story more legs.
3. It was a number of Apps rejected all at once and all related to the same technology (Google Voice). This gives it more attention due to scale (vs. single apps here and there).
4. The number of stories of stupid AppStore approval decisions has been steadily growing. There is a sort of cumulative affect.
You know, flip off your neighbor and only a few people care. Flip off the president and you'll have people demanding you be brought up on treason charges.
I might add that I don't think this policy is due to maliciousness on Apple's part. The reality is that trying to handle refunds has a number of logistical nightmares associated with it, namely:
1. Refund standards and laws within contiguous regions that the store serves are inconsistent. For instance, just because you have Apple Store USA, doesn't mean that there can be one consistent refund policy. Now multiply this problem by the number of countries that the store is present in.
2. A great number of customers would use refunds as a way to "try before you buy". The numbers would be significantly high enough to cause a problem.
Now, there's that old saying that you should never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to ignorance. I strongly suspect Apple's approach to this specific case is a simple case of bureaucratic ignorance. I bet that you have a middle-management type implementing a policy that was designed for him/her based upon very specific legal advice. The situation has probably been flagged for attention by the legal department and upper management, but until a policy is designed, they have to address the current situation using known protocols.
If you were at the Tech Talk that I was, Apple apologized for a lot of the iTunes Store stupidity that developers were complaining about online. They also explained why things were the way they were and it wasn't due to Apple being malicious.
1. The developer is on the hook for refunding 100% of the sale price... but Apple takes a 30% cut of the sale price. So the developer is actually _losing_ money to make a refund to the customer.
2. Apple is the cause of the refunds.
Apple is in a win-win situation here (for them) because they are making their own decisions and shrugging off any responsibility or consequences for their actions on to the developers. Wouldn't it be nice to have someone else take the fall and/or answer for the consequences of any actions that you take?
The developer IS NOT on the hook for 100%. They ARE NOT losing money.
I agree that it's not as simple as Steve Jobs rolling around in a swimming pool of money cackling at the misfortune of penniless developers, but I find it hard to believe nobody has mentioned to him that the peasants are revolting.