Apple Putting The Squeeze On iPhone Developers(kotaku.com)
kotaku.com
Apple Putting The Squeeze On iPhone Developers
http://kotaku.com/5181471/apple-putting-the-squeeze-on-iphone-developers
3 comments
The sad thing is that this is still actually one of the better contracts for mobile app distribution.
No contract at all is needed to distribute Android apps.
No contract is needed for most platforms. However, most sales come from distributors that run on-device or online stores, and they all require a contract.
Look at Handango's terms to see how bad it can get.
Look at Handango's terms to see how bad it can get.
Any proof beyond the "A friend of a friend" rumor mill excretion?
This is absolute BS; nothing more than a nasty rumour.
Please don't post this crap here.
Actually it's right there in the contract... although I'm no legal professional, so I could be misunderstanding it.
To clarify
There's three 'it's in the story. The first is that Apple will start offering 90 day refunds, the second is that devs will have to sign a new contract by the end of the week and the third is that devs will have to pay back Apple 100% of the purchase price of any apps returned (meaning that for every refund the dev makes a 30% loss)
My take - for what it's worth
1. The 90 day refund story is rubbish and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the AppStore and what it is. There's very few apps here intended to last more than 90 days. They're disposable, especially the games. You pay $1 and get half an hour's entertainment.
2. There is a new contract, but it states nothing of this 90 day return policy
3. As quoted by gcheong below, it seems there is provision for Apple to claim money back from a dev in the case where they offer a refund, however (as also noted by icey) I think this is more of a CYA clause.
In short, the article is nothing more than flamebait, which it seems I've fallen for :P
There's three 'it's in the story. The first is that Apple will start offering 90 day refunds, the second is that devs will have to sign a new contract by the end of the week and the third is that devs will have to pay back Apple 100% of the purchase price of any apps returned (meaning that for every refund the dev makes a 30% loss)
My take - for what it's worth
1. The 90 day refund story is rubbish and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of the AppStore and what it is. There's very few apps here intended to last more than 90 days. They're disposable, especially the games. You pay $1 and get half an hour's entertainment.
2. There is a new contract, but it states nothing of this 90 day return policy
3. As quoted by gcheong below, it seems there is provision for Apple to claim money back from a dev in the case where they offer a refund, however (as also noted by icey) I think this is more of a CYA clause.
In short, the article is nothing more than flamebait, which it seems I've fallen for :P
The article is a bit inflammatory as it does not give much detail. Here is the entire section 6.3 which mentions the 90 refund policy:
"6.3 In the event that Apple receives any notice or claim from any end-user that: (i) the end-user wishes to cancel its license to any of the Licensed Applications within ninety (90) days of the date of download of that Licensed Application by that end-user; or (ii) a Licensed Application fails to conform to Your specifications or Your product warranty or the requirements of any applicable law, Apple may refund to the end-user the full amount of the price paid by the end-user for that Licensed Application. In the event that Apple refunds any such price to an end-user, You shall reimburse, or grant Apple a credit for, an amount equal to the price for that Licensed Application. Apple will have the right to retain its commission on the sale of that Licensed Application, notwithstanding the refund of the price to the end- user."
You can see a copy of the full agreement in this techcrunch article (also posted to HN):
http://tinyurl.com/c6szk2
"6.3 In the event that Apple receives any notice or claim from any end-user that: (i) the end-user wishes to cancel its license to any of the Licensed Applications within ninety (90) days of the date of download of that Licensed Application by that end-user; or (ii) a Licensed Application fails to conform to Your specifications or Your product warranty or the requirements of any applicable law, Apple may refund to the end-user the full amount of the price paid by the end-user for that Licensed Application. In the event that Apple refunds any such price to an end-user, You shall reimburse, or grant Apple a credit for, an amount equal to the price for that Licensed Application. Apple will have the right to retain its commission on the sale of that Licensed Application, notwithstanding the refund of the price to the end- user."
You can see a copy of the full agreement in this techcrunch article (also posted to HN):
http://tinyurl.com/c6szk2
I'm in about my 12th hour with fieldrunners. I wish (for productivity's sake) I could throw it away.
Can you link or excerpt?
Section 6.3 of the contract includes this text:
“In the event that Apple refunds any such price to an end-user, You shall reimburse, or grant Apple a credit for, an amount equal to the price for that Licensed Application. Apple will have the right to retain its commission on the sale of that Licensed Application, notwithstanding the refund of the price to the end-user.”
“In the event that Apple refunds any such price to an end-user, You shall reimburse, or grant Apple a credit for, an amount equal to the price for that Licensed Application. Apple will have the right to retain its commission on the sale of that Licensed Application, notwithstanding the refund of the price to the end-user.”
Retaining the right to keep their commission is not remotely the same thing as forcing developers to pay back Apple 100% of the sale amount, including paying back Apple's commission amount.
My guess is that they are including this in their contracts to allow for punitive actions in cases of things like the $999 "I am Rich app".
Of course, there's still the chance that I'm completely wrong and Apple is intentionally trying to scare developers away from a fledgling platform and towards Palm's WebOS and Android; but I think it's a bit silly to get up in arms about this until there's something more detailed than the parsing of somewhat unclear contractual terms.
(Also, thank you for showing us the section that they're talking about!)
My guess is that they are including this in their contracts to allow for punitive actions in cases of things like the $999 "I am Rich app".
Of course, there's still the chance that I'm completely wrong and Apple is intentionally trying to scare developers away from a fledgling platform and towards Palm's WebOS and Android; but I think it's a bit silly to get up in arms about this until there's something more detailed than the parsing of somewhat unclear contractual terms.
(Also, thank you for showing us the section that they're talking about!)
You're probably right. But there's a bigger problem here: big corporations make the consumer (the developer in this case) sign the most onerous contract imaginable and say "oh, we'd never enforce it that way."
When the poop hits the fan, they have all the legal leeway they want to strong arm you and you cannot do jack. My favorite example of this is the forced arbitration clauses, where you consent not to even go to court.
The average consumer does not have sufficient access access to legal counsel to enter into such contracts prudently.
This whole arrangement is a slap in the face of equal protection under law principle. The relative cost of legal representation for a large corporate entity is nothing compared to me trying to get legal opinion on my AT&T contract (shudder).
When the poop hits the fan, they have all the legal leeway they want to strong arm you and you cannot do jack. My favorite example of this is the forced arbitration clauses, where you consent not to even go to court.
The average consumer does not have sufficient access access to legal counsel to enter into such contracts prudently.
This whole arrangement is a slap in the face of equal protection under law principle. The relative cost of legal representation for a large corporate entity is nothing compared to me trying to get legal opinion on my AT&T contract (shudder).
I couldn't agree more.
Laws & rules are worthless unless enforced equally and absolutely. Once the cops start deciding /when/ to enforce a law, a country is no better than a lawless one.
This is just the contractual parallel to that situation.
Is this part of the contract new or has it been in there all along. I'll be the first to admit to clicking the "Accept" button having only read blog articles about the terms, but not the terms themselves.
Laws & rules are worthless unless enforced equally and absolutely. Once the cops start deciding /when/ to enforce a law, a country is no better than a lawless one.
This is just the contractual parallel to that situation.
Is this part of the contract new or has it been in there all along. I'll be the first to admit to clicking the "Accept" button having only read blog articles about the terms, but not the terms themselves.
Perhaps there should be a return policy attached to every app.
It seems that a fair argument can be made for both cases: some apps are clearly $1 disposable toys, while others are $50 business apps. It seems entirely appropriate to have a return policy for the latter category, but not the former.
It seems that a fair argument can be made for both cases: some apps are clearly $1 disposable toys, while others are $50 business apps. It seems entirely appropriate to have a return policy for the latter category, but not the former.
In my opinion, this is the true issue at hand - clauses like this in contracts are commonplace; and most people are probably unaware of it until they have to litigate for some reason, or are hit with ridiculous fees.
I agree. Time will tell just to what extent Apple intends to exercise their rights.