Mbw 718: taste the mustard!

Beep boop - this is a robot. A new show has been posted to TWiT…

What are your thoughts about today’s show? We’d love to hear from you!

1 Like

I would fully agree with Alex regarding his Apple store 30% justification arguments. As he said, there are likely only 3 protesting in a room of 10K. And to extrapolate Andy’s point, congress should debate and decide whether Apple’s 30% is appropriate based on those 3 protesting, is liberalism at its best.

1 Like

If something is wrong, does it matter how few people are speaking up about it?


I also agree with Alex. The way to do this is to have the subscription be based on a web site with the download of a free app from the store; require a login on the app and if the subscription is valid approve the connection.

1 Like

That’s exactly what Hey.com wants to do. Apple won’t let the app in the store unless it offers the subscription as an in-app purchase, for which Apple will take 30%.


Isn’t that what Amazon does with the Kindle and the purchase of books?

Are there other ways to get books on a Kindle besides buying them from Amazon?

I believe you can side load pdf and other electronic type files locally on your computer.

1 Like

I can also buy Kindle-format books elsewhere and, in some cases, send them directly to my Kindle app.

Well, I have to agree with Alex as well. Nobody says that an OS must be universal in every way. And every company has the right to license it the way it finds suitable. Restricting apps included. After all, using a proprietary API doesn’t have to be free.

So, if a user doesn’t like it, they’re free to use other systems. Nobody ever says it’s Microsoft’s fault that an application is not available on Windows, so why would it be Apple’s fault in a similar situation?

Alex also made another good point by saying that it’s the minority that wishes changes in the way Apple services and OS’s work. With all due respect, we cannot have Apple change their system and make it less secure/restricted, which is what most users cherish it for, because a small part of their user base (or their competitors’) has a different opinion. It’s a free market, after all, let everyone decide what’s best for them.

Paul Thurrott and Sam talk about this on their daily podcast First Ring Daily.

It’s NOT a free market for iOS devices. That was indeed the entire point.

1 Like

Would there be an option for companies such as hey.com to establish a 1-month subscription through the Apple store, then do extended subscriptions through their own website?

I think they should add a button to the iOS app, exactly as Apple asks, for a lifetime subscription for $1M or something equally silly. Something no sane person would select. They don’t need to offer that anywhere else as it could be a special offer only made to people that drink Apple juice.

Kindle supports mobi and PDF. You can send them to your kindle email and then they become available in your library. You can then download them in all of your devices.

Hey Leo a lot of people do this already. The most recent one I discovered is nebula. I guys if apple was blocking people by default we would not have so many people doing it?

You’re obviously correct if you compare App Store to the general market governed by FTC. I’d have to agree with that. However, iOS and App Store are products and services offered by a private company, hence, they’re not public assets. Apple and other providers are allowed to make their services the way they wish under the free-market rules and set their own ones, require licensing fees, etc. Nobody forces anyone to use them, and there are other options as well.

If we look at the size of iOS user base, things can’t be that bad. And if a software provider decides to reach it, we’ll, these are the costs. And they obviously can afford it. Otherwise, iPhone & co. wouldn’t be so popular.

My other point is, a company should not complain to the authorities just because they find certain products too expensive.

1 Like

I think the point that was missed is that even though Apple may technically have a minority of the phone market, they have a majority of the profits. And those customers who spend more money for Apple phones, also spend more money on apps, which is why iOS is where developers need to be.

I think the 30% cut makes sense for some things (especially if they’re hosting said item), but problematic for markets which they sell the same goods (like movies/books). And it can be frustrating to the end user who might not understand why they have to leave the app, log in to a website to make their digital good purchase.

They’ve done so much mental gymnastics on why they allow some apps but deny others, it’s frustrating to watch. I hope they can find the right balance with developers so improve the experience overall.


Can’t do that either. The prices in the iOS app much match any prices for the same service offered through other means. So - if you sell a service on iOS for 1 M, you have to offer it on your website for 1M.

It’s how they get around you increasing the cost of your app by 30% while offering it on, for example Google, for less.

1 Like

Here’s where I get confused. I thought the $100 annual developer fee was used to pay for these things? It costs Apple the same amount of money to host a free app as it does to host one that costs $100 .

I don’t necessarily object to the developer fee. But if the developer fee doesn’t go to pay the costs of supporting the app store - then how do free apps get away without some charge against them?