Hacker News Reader

> Today, Hey iOS when downloaded IS NOT FUNCTIONAL if you didn’t know to already sign up for the service on their website.

The only reason for this is that Apple explicitly disallows apps from linking to or even mentioning subscription options that do not go through Apple's payment ecosystem and pay Apple's tax. Blaming the ensuing bad user experience on app developers is a case of "why are you hitting yourself?"

> As for the 30% fee, why shouldn’t they get a cut?

That 30% is, ultimately, coming from our pockets. Apple wants it because it prefers our money in their pockets. We, as the consumers, should fight back and demand it be lowered because we prefer our money in our own pockets. I don't understand why I should advocate that Apple should make apps more expensive and should take more of my money.

But don’t they do this because they can Protect the consumers card data better than anyone.

Everyone loves Apple for their unwavering stance in user Privacy. How is this not just another example of that?

(I’m not trying to be combative. I’m just playing devils advocate and pointing out this topic is way more complex than others are making it out to be)

>But don’t they do this because they can Protect the consumers card data better than anyone.

Compared to what? If there is a fraudulent charge on your credit card, issue a chargeback. If I had two options: 1) Once every couple of years I may get a credit card's details stolen and I have to spend perhaps an hour on the phone with the bank to get thing sorted out, 2) the credit card issuer gives me a card with some futuristic technology that makes fraud literally impossible; so I don't have to spend that one hour every couple of years sorting out a fraudulent transaction; however, the credit card adds a 30% surcharge to every transaction—I would choose option 1, no questions. Wouldn't you?

It seems like a lot of consumers would, and do choose 2) by choosing to buy into Apple's ecosystem.

Most consumers have no idea they are paying this 30%. I wish there was a law forcing the amount of Apple tax to be disclosed on a separate line in any purchase price and receipt, like it is the case with sales taxes. If people know, many would be outraged that the company they have paid over $1000 for a device is also nickel-and-diming them for using the device.

Should we also force every other retailer to display their wholesale cost?

Sure. That's fair, if the user believes the 30% is worth the extra safety that Apple provides, they should be able to pay that. But why the restriction that developers cannot even hint that less expensive options are available through other means?

It's definitely not preferable, but if 37Signals adds an in-app purchase and charges $130 instead of $99, would Apple approve the App? Maybe as a protest they should charge $200 in-App :P

Again, just playing devils advocate and using the brick and mortar store example.

If I sold my widget online direct to consumer for $99 and got to pocket all of that.

Why wouldn’t I assume that if I tried to sell my widget inside of the brick and mortar store for the same $99, that they wouldn’t want to make margin on selling my widget for me - which would reduce my take home profit

Margins on brick and mortar are extremely thin -- 3-4% overhead is considered excellent.

The meat of the issue here is that you cannot sell your widget directly online to consumers. Apple does not allow that. You have to always sell through the Apple store and always pay that margin whether you want to or not.

To use the brick and mortar store analogy, would you be happy if you were forced to sell only through Walmart (and thus paying their margin) and not directly to customers, even when you are completely capable of doing it?

Devils advocate.

Why can’t they sell this direct to consumer in iOS via safari?

And make it a web app on mobile just like how it’s a web app on desktop.

For your analogy to hold, we should be able to run a PWA in the same sandbox as iOS apps with the same access to hardware as a native iOS app.

Why doesn’t iOS Safari have these capabilities? Why can’t we download apps and sideload them in the same type of sandbox that App Store sourced apps do?

There’s already an interoperability exemption for jailbreaking. I hope that this precedent is reinforced and expanded through lawsuits and legislation if Apple won’t implement first-party sideloading support willingly.

It’s a matter of equal access to technology and accessibility of tools. To own a thing is to be able to adapt it and make it work the way you need, as well as the way you want. The first sale doctrine applies to software too. Clickwrap EULAs are not always legally binding, and you cannot arbitrate away certain unalienable rights. If I own a thing, I can modify or disassemble it, as well as sell it or otherwise transfer it. These concepts need to be enforced more specifically for digital assets such as apps and mobile operating systems.

It already is a web app that you can use of safari on iOS without problems. But native apps provide a lot of benefits like push notifications, offline data storage and support, home screen icon, etc, especially for a mail app.

All those things are possible for PWAs, just not on ios.

I don't get this controversy at all. If Apple requires a 30% cut of in-app purchases, raise in-app prices 30% and provide a link to a 30% "discount" version through your website.

Is that also against an Apple rule? If so I can somewhat understand.

EDIT: You can upcharge IAP purchases, but you can't advertise the cheaper alternative. That's wildly anti-consumer on Apple's part, surely the EU can't be happy about that kind of situation?

It used to be disallowed, but now they allow you to upcharge IAP purchases. Either way, the situation is terrible for consumers and developers alike.

I didn’t know that they allow different prices. A few days ago someone replied to my comment on HN and told me that it’s not allowed. If indeed it’s allowed, I think it’s more reasonable for Apple to require app makers to offer the IAP signup option.

Yes, I find it hard to believe that YouTube charging 30% or 40% more for a YouTube Premium subscription through iOS and not telling the customer that they are paying a vastly inflated price because Apple insists on getting a cut is protecting or advocating for consumers in any way, shape or form.

The analogy with brick and mortar stores doesn't really work, because in the case of iOS Apple owns and controls the only store.

You could argue people could choose Android, but that's not quite the same thing since the user has to completely change operating systems and hardware to do it.

I'm not sure there is a good non-digital analogy.

If Apple cared about the user experience they could still require in app sign up and IAP, but not take a rent-seeking cut.

They could make money by inventing and selling really great products (which is why people like them in the first place).

Why does it even need to be an iOS app.

Why can’t Hey offer a mobile web version of their app?

Again, just playing devils advocate. But Hey can in fact make their product accessible to iOS user via Safari. And Hey wouldn’t need to give Apple any money for that.

Safari will even let user save a web app directly to your home screen.

Ironically, this functionality existed BEFORE the Apple store even existed.

https://www.macrumors.com/how-to/add-a-web-link-to-home-scre...

EDIT: why the downvotes? I’m just trying to facilitate a friendly two-sided point of view on this topic. See my NOTE in my original parent post. I’m just trying to point out this is a way more complex topic than most realize.

> Why can’t Hey offer a mobile web version of their app? No. Apple has crippled the Progress Web Apps on iOS safari.

No email client is useful without push notifications.

All other browser on iOS (including Chrome and Firefox) are wrappers around Safari, because Apple restricts other browser engines i.e: Chromium, Firefox.

Look at how many requests for new features/API's are there on the WebKit forms. Apple choses to ignore them because if Apple were to really support PWA's properly, this situation wouldn't have happened.

Apple also randomly clears storage for website added to homescreen and there is a limit of only 50mb. Apps like Gmail cache data on the scale of 600mb to several GB.

Again, devils advocate.

But push notification absolutely kills your battery.

Back to point number 1, user experience. It’s not a good user experience if your iPhone lasts only 2 hours because push notifications kill your battery.

The simple answer is because mobile web apps suck.

As a user I want a native app. Hey (or any dev really) should be able to write software for a platform without having to pay tax, maybe they pay for app store distribution or review or submission or something (developer account?), but they shouldn't have to do profit sharing.

I understand the value of having a curated store, I understand the value of locking down the OS. If you're going to do that though - you shouldn't be able to tap all profits going through it.

Imagine if macOS only ran applications from the macOS app store and took a cut of everything. Imagine if they forced Safari only on macOS and took a cut of applications there too. It's not a perfect analogy because most apps on desktop are web apps and not native and the history is more of an open system, but there's something wrong with this kind of rent-seeking. It's counter to their brand, it's hostile, and I'd argue it's likely to make them focus on the wrong things.

Ummm... Netflix? Amazon Prime?

Of course they can get a cut, like any retail store. But 30% is waaaay higher than what is usual retail markup.

It should be single digit.

You’d be surprised but many products provide a 100% markup for the retailer.

It’s so common there’s a term for it.

Keystone pricing

https://www.marketing91.com/keystone-pricing/

Also keep in mind that just the credit card processing, which Apple absorbs the cost of can be ~3% + $0.25

Usual retail markup depends on the category. For jeans it’s several thousand percent.

> As for the 30% fee, why shouldn’t they get a cut?

Because it's anti-competitive (Supreme Court agrees...). It's not apple's responsibility to help me safeguard my credit card data.

Can you provide a reference to your comment about the “Supreme court agrees”.

I don’t know what youre referring too.

https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/13/supreme-court-rules-agains...

That just says that SCOTUS agreed it met the standards to go forward as a case, not that it is actually anti-competitive, right? That'll be decided by a lower court in the actual case, no?