- Joined
- Jul 2, 2014
- Messages
- 7,437
- Reaction score
- 1,951
- Location
- Confirmation Bias Land
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Background: For some time, I've been running a side business online that has always used PayPal for its browser-based payment processing. More recently, a colleague of mine and I started working on Android and iOS apps to provide a more convenient interface for our users. Earlier this week, I finished testing and debugging the first production-ready version of the iOS app and submitted it to Apple for review. (My first submission! Yay!)
Apple requested three or four changes before they would consider the app as "meeting their guidelines." The biggest of these changes is that I have to get rid of the PayPal link in the app and replace it with Apple's own "in-app purchase" payment processor. Obviously I'll do it, because it's "Apple's house" and that means Apple gets to make the rules for its partners. What leaves me with a bad taste, however, isn't the extra bit of coding or the unnecessary complication to my business' accounting. To me, this rule seems to be anti-competitive. In a free market, shouldn't your vendor partners be able to choose any payment processor they prefer?
I'd like to know what the forum thinks: is Apple making a reasonable demand, or not?
Background: For some time, I've been running a side business online that has always used PayPal for its browser-based payment processing. More recently, a colleague of mine and I started working on Android and iOS apps to provide a more convenient interface for our users. Earlier this week, I finished testing and debugging the first production-ready version of the iOS app and submitted it to Apple for review. (My first submission! Yay!)
Apple requested three or four changes before they would consider the app as "meeting their guidelines." The biggest of these changes is that I have to get rid of the PayPal link in the app and replace it with Apple's own "in-app purchase" payment processor. Obviously I'll do it, because it's "Apple's house" and that means Apple gets to make the rules for its partners. What leaves me with a bad taste, however, isn't the extra bit of coding or the unnecessary complication to my business' accounting. To me, this rule seems to be anti-competitive. In a free market, shouldn't your vendor partners be able to choose any payment processor they prefer?
I'd like to know what the forum thinks: is Apple making a reasonable demand, or not?
Apple is Apple. They will get their 30% no matter what. If I were you, I would change the Paypal link to just a weblink and on that webpage have a link to paypal. That is how many newspapers do it now days to avoid paying the Apple tax.
Apple is Apple. They will get their 30% no matter what. If I were you, I would change the Paypal link to just a weblink and on that webpage have a link to paypal. That is how many newspapers do it now days to avoid paying the Apple tax.
Background: For some time, I've been running a side business online that has always used PayPal for its browser-based payment processing. More recently, a colleague of mine and I started working on Android and iOS apps to provide a more convenient interface for our users. Earlier this week, I finished testing and debugging the first production-ready version of the iOS app and submitted it to Apple for review. (My first submission! Yay!)
Apple requested three or four changes before they would consider the app as "meeting their guidelines." The biggest of these changes is that I have to get rid of the PayPal link in the app and replace it with Apple's own "in-app purchase" payment processor. Obviously I'll do it, because it's "Apple's house" and that means Apple gets to make the rules for its partners. What leaves me with a bad taste, however, isn't the extra bit of coding or the unnecessary complication to my business' accounting. To me, this rule seems to be anti-competitive. In a free market, shouldn't your vendor partners be able to choose any payment processor they prefer?
I'd like to know what the forum thinks: is Apple making a reasonable demand, or not?
Apple has been banning developers who play games with Apple Guidelines, when they find them or receive a complaint from a user (more likely) inclusive of subscription news services (which will be segregated within the app store when the News App is released for OSX or its successor).
The 30% is not an Apple Tax. It is payment for services to developers, including tools, safety and security, payment collection guarantees (not available from PayPal), protection from code theft and copycats (not available from PayPal), a sales partnership agreement for sales of iCloud storage in app and painless payments to the developer thereof (not available from PayPal), reputation enhancement as long as the developer adheres to the guidelines (which alone can be very remunerative) (not available from PayPal), and so on. The developer receives more than the 30% in services and remuneration were the developer to compare these avenues toward income with offerings from other platforms.
It is Apple's developer sandbox, which also protects the consumer from nefarious vendors. No other platform offers anything similar, tho Alphabet has made the attempt for Android.
Apple also offers privacy protections for developers, again which no other platform offers, and that does prevent some disgruntled maniac from showing up at your door. There's much more, including free technical support, community support forums for developers (extremely valuable because of guideline restrictions), and access to the most remunerative platform for developers, especially startup developers, with minimal developer marketing costs, again compared to any other platform.
Background: For some time, I've been running a side business online that has always used PayPal for its browser-based payment processing. More recently, a colleague of mine and I started working on Android and iOS apps to provide a more convenient interface for our users. Earlier this week, I finished testing and debugging the first production-ready version of the iOS app and submitted it to Apple for review. (My first submission! Yay!)
Apple requested three or four changes before they would consider the app as "meeting their guidelines." The biggest of these changes is that I have to get rid of the PayPal link in the app and replace it with Apple's own "in-app purchase" payment processor. Obviously I'll do it, because it's "Apple's house" and that means Apple gets to make the rules for its partners. What leaves me with a bad taste, however, isn't the extra bit of coding or the unnecessary complication to my business' accounting. To me, this rule seems to be anti-competitive. In a free market, shouldn't your vendor partners be able to choose any payment processor they prefer?
I'd like to know what the forum thinks: is Apple making a reasonable demand, or not?
As I already said, Apple's house and Apple's rules. I completely get that. And I started designing the iOS version of my site interface some time ago, because I'm well aware that 20% of the mobile market is too big to ignore.You don't like the guidelines, play elsewhere. Let us know how that works for your pockets.
Haven't needed to look into this before, but I'd be very surprised if my accounting software couldn't import HTML. It's just one more thing on the "crap to do" list.As well, when you see your first developer payment statements, you'll quickly learn it simplifies your own business bookkeeping and accounting. It is almost automatically converts to html formatting, and if you're using software for bookkeeping and accounting that doesn't import html, you need to change your software. It's long in the tooth.
I do participate in the forums, and you're right. Very few people could write iOS apps without them. Nor is being forced to use in-app purchases an impossible burden. I just wonder if it should be as orthodox a commandment as Apple wants it to be.If you participate in the developer forums, you'll see very few complaints, and then mostly for a glitch most everyone is experiencing, with many work arounds offered. Getting to know which developer forums suit your needs is a worthwhile time investment.
Thank you.Good luck out there. I hope you make a lot of money.
Nor is being forced to use in-app purchases an impossible burden. I just wonder if it should be as orthodox a commandment as Apple wants it to be.
From what I gathered in my research, developers didn't have to use in-app purchases until iOS 11 was released, after which things tightened up again. No idea why.You are not required to use in app purchases. Early on, Apple rejected apps that did so. Developers demanded the option. Apple's initial concern was games, selling to kids with no parental controls.
One of my kids developed a free app for teachers, cataloging museum site pages offered on line, with visual samples from the pages keyed to the links, with an ability to pass the links to student via e-mail for student assignment review. Works on both iOS and OSX, syncing the data between devices as needed, and no in app purchases or advertising. This is by a girl who at the moment, wants to become a professional museum curator. A year ago, she wanted to become a professional female wrestler. Her brothers are thankful her goals have changed. Little do they know, she signed up for boxing lessons this summer. When queried about broken noses in the near future, my magic 8 ball responded "Maybe."
Background: For some time, I've been running a side business online that has always used PayPal for its browser-based payment processing. More recently, a colleague of mine and I started working on Android and iOS apps to provide a more convenient interface for our users. Earlier this week, I finished testing and debugging the first production-ready version of the iOS app and submitted it to Apple for review. (My first submission! Yay!)
Apple requested three or four changes before they would consider the app as "meeting their guidelines." The biggest of these changes is that I have to get rid of the PayPal link in the app and replace it with Apple's own "in-app purchase" payment processor. Obviously I'll do it, because it's "Apple's house" and that means Apple gets to make the rules for its partners. What leaves me with a bad taste, however, isn't the extra bit of coding or the unnecessary complication to my business' accounting. To me, this rule seems to be anti-competitive. In a free market, shouldn't your vendor partners be able to choose any payment processor they prefer?
I'd like to know what the forum thinks: is Apple making a reasonable demand, or not?
From what I gathered in my research, developers didn't have to use in-app purchases until iOS 11 was released, after which things tightened up again. No idea why.
Maybe she can be a museum curator by day and a female wrestler by night! :2funny:
Background: For some time, I've been running a side business online that has always used PayPal for its browser-based payment processing. More recently, a colleague of mine and I started working on Android and iOS apps to provide a more convenient interface for our users. Earlier this week, I finished testing and debugging the first production-ready version of the iOS app and submitted it to Apple for review. (My first submission! Yay!)
Apple requested three or four changes before they would consider the app as "meeting their guidelines." The biggest of these changes is that I have to get rid of the PayPal link in the app and replace it with Apple's own "in-app purchase" payment processor. Obviously I'll do it, because it's "Apple's house" and that means Apple gets to make the rules for its partners. What leaves me with a bad taste, however, isn't the extra bit of coding or the unnecessary complication to my business' accounting. To me, this rule seems to be anti-competitive. In a free market, shouldn't your vendor partners be able to choose any payment processor they prefer?
I'd like to know what the forum thinks: is Apple making a reasonable demand, or not?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?