Wow. I am the author of this email. I have no idea how it resurfaced after 5 years, I was only made aware of this when a friend emailed me the HN link.<p>The sad thing is it was not just my company which was targeted, but Apple removed this entire product category. We never knew the real reason why, or if it was bigger than just a random app reviewer trying to apply Apple policy, until May 2019.<p>That's when Bloomberg interviewed Phillip Shoemaker, who ran app reviews from 2009 to 2016 - regarding how Apple systemically removes whole categories of apps. I subsequently spoke to Phillip Shoemaker, who confirmed that Apple executives ordered the elimination of apps that drove downloads to the App Store. He said "Your app drove download volume. Apple doesn’t want any outside sources to drive ratings. So yeah, we got rid of all app recommendation apps." He said he thought it was unfair, but this was something Apple set out to do, and even as Senior Director of App Store (person directly in charge of App Review), he could not stop it.<p>The other thing that was hard to understand, is we used to have a great relationship with Apple. We were not flying under the radar. Since the App Store first launched in 2008, we used to be invited to all Apple events to see the new product launches, we met with the iTunes team to discuss upcoming initiates for the App Store, our apps were featured on the devices inside of many demo units into Apple Stores. It felt like a complete 180, and until this day I never got a formal conversation on what they actually objected to, beyond being pointed to a vague rule which was applied arbitrarily. They became a brick wall in terms of communication, and this is why I resorted to emailing Tim Cook. I assumed nothing would come of it, but it was the last thing I could think of.I never received a response, and never knew if he even got it, so I was shocked to see it again today from his inbox.
I mean, there’s a point to be made about how much monopoly power Apple holds, and it’s now clear these questions weren’t asked until now because lawmakers were really sweet on the maker of their shiny iPhone - but this letter ain’t it.<p>The author is grovelling to the point of it being honestly pitiful. The amount of derogatory references to the web and Android also make it really hard for me not to question the motivation behind this letter.<p>It’s transparently from an author who built their entire business on the shoulders of a single third party and is now horrified in realising it’s been taken away.<p>If anything, the lesson to be learned here is that if your business depends exclusively on another company for its survival then it’s not <i>your</i> business.<p>To the authors point - yes, Apple can change it’s policies whenever it likes, and can use those policies to kill other companies it views as competing with it’s own interests.<p>This in itself isn’t news. Dropbox got flat out told by Steve Jobs to sell immediately for whatever he felt generous enough to give them or he’d crush them with a competitor. There was a podcast recently wherein someone who sold to Apple (I’m sorry I can’t remember who it was, will try to dig it out and update) got his deal reduced by 25% or so by Steve Jobs in person - after accepting it and flying out to Cupertino just because Jobs could and he wanted to make a point.<p>This isn’t new information or a new policy, although maybe it’ll be a fairer playing field now that the hornet’s nest has received a good kicking.
I fully agree with the author, and "App Review is getting too powerful" was an extremely prescient thing to say back then - let alone today.<p>I've had my own share of similar experiences with Apple in the past, one of which was here on HN recently: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585682" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23585682</a><p>Apple currently has an unreasonable amount of control not only on <i>what</i> apps can be available on their devices, but also on <i>how</i> they look, work, and generate revenue. They allow 3rd-party innovation to occur only down specific paths that they deem beneficial.<p>On top of everything, Apple is also <i>systematically erasing all App Review rejection communications</i> [1] and keeping most of this abuse in the dark, thus buying themselves more time to stay in this dominant position.<p>Something definitely needs to change here, hopefully sooner than later.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.change.org/p/apple-let-us-browse-all-our-past-resolution-center-communications" rel="nofollow">https://www.change.org/p/apple-let-us-browse-all-our-past-re...</a>
> It's very weird to be in love with and scared of the same thing: Apple.<p>Sound like an abusive relationship, and like what an abused partner would say to try to rationalize the fact that they're economically dependent on the abuser.
I think the worst part of this letter is the date; over 5 years ago and nothing is really different in any of the areas raised.<p>Yet the same execs that were CC’d are in charge. I’m glad they had some great “thoughts” on the matter.
I don't really understand why Apple is allowed to have the amount of power it has today: it provides the hardware, the operating system, the software store (which they make sure is the only way to get software for most users), _and_ gets to decide whether any particular piece of software is allowed on the store? Surely there needs to be some separation of powers? e.g. a third party (could be set up by the government or in some other ways) will review the apps and Apple only maintains the software store without having much power over the contents in the store.<p>It was understandable at the time when everything was uncharted territory so Apple got to do whatever it wanted, but now that smart phones are so tightly integrated into the lives of many people, it seems Apple shouldn't be allowed to hold on to all those power. Is anything being done in that direction that might become effective?
Man, from the title I was really hoping this was an internal Apple doc written to Tim Cook by an Apple higher-up, or that it would maybe include a response from Tim Cook but, nope, it's just a well-written complaint expouding on the chokehold Apple has on their walled garden ecosystem.
The App Store was always a walled garden with notably tall walls. The power Apple has over who gets into the App Store has been described as the primary virtue and attraction of iOS devices for years. Users love that it is a curated collection with a very high bar for quality, and many are willing to accept the trade-off that not all apps (even technically legitimate ones) will be published there.<p>This is why the web is so important. More to the topic at hand: this is why Apple purposely, broadly second-classing the web on iOS is so important, and needs to stop.<p>On Android, a directory-style app would be trivial to distribute on the web as an installable PWA that eventually becomes indistinguishable from a native app from the user's perspective. It's 2020; this is a sub-basement level of capability that all platforms should include by now. Let's stop pretending that ceding all the publishing power to one company is a trade-off that makes sense in the long-run (this goes for Apple, Google, Microsoft, Amazon and all the rest).
> I fear App Review is getting too powerful. It's no longer about keeping iDevices safe or protecting the user's best<p>Its amazing that people right here on hackernews, 5 years later, actually think it is about keeping iDevices safe when they see these legislature and regulatory movements against Apple<p>I’m glad to see your email now
Can we correct the title? 2015 is not the correct date of public publication; this document was published as part of House antitrust discovery, I believe this year, and was private communication before that. Finding the precise date is beyond my brief Googling efforts, though.
One thing missing from this discussion is: where is academia? The WWW was created inside academia, and it's because of that that it's still open and competitive. The internet itself was created in the military. Where is the equivalent for mobile apps? It's a problematic category that is wholly dominated by 2 actors, one of which isn't even interested in phones. We need a common set of standards for mobile development in order to open up the competition
The legislation I'd get behind is to enforce <i>import</i> / <i>export</i> of data across platforms a la. Google takeout but better where you can both <i>export</i> and <i>import</i> with a single click.<p>That is, rather than getting into some abstract arguments on what an App store should or shouldn't do the focus should be on lowering the cost of switching mobile / wearable computing platforms down to a <i>single click</i> of a button.<p>There is no issue with making an ecosystem more appealing by making them well integrated but there has to be an out of some kind for the consumer.<p>All those "Their app store, their rule" arguments don't hold water if you compare it to, say, AT&T holding your phone number hostage and claiming that they're not a monopoly and you can switch to another carrier but need to use a new phone number if you do.
Since this is a recent release from the house investigation, I'm not sure if it should be marked 2015 or not. But it was sent in 2015. I also wonder if it had any affect. If anyone knows more details, that would be great to hear.
I feel happy that aside of doing couple of small contract things I've never had to deal with App stores and their respective owners. I just can't tolerate that kind of control over my products hence refuse to participate.
We're in the process to leave the App store ecosystem ourselves by migrating our Apps to a WebApp, responsive, PWA, HTML5.<p>Surprisingly, somehow, it is actually based on Steve's amazing Thoughts on flash Open Letter, that emphasizes HTML5
I honestly feel the best option would be for spotify, netflix, microsoft, facebook, epic, and all other companies who have been burned by apple to pull their apps indefinitely.<p>Sort of like a hunger strike. I am confident apple will cave first.
The first time I read the guidance documents for branding and submission of apps to the Apple and Google App stores, I had to look around and ask myself why no one else was calling it out as anti-competitive. I know what a free market looks like, I also know when onerous requirements are being place on something just to get in. Both companies have done the same things. When you see as many companies acquired and killed as has gone on in the last 20 years or so it becomes pretty damn obvious what is going on. It's just amazing it has taken this long for traction to develop in that regard.
How did we get from the attitude that web apps will be everything and native is backward to spending a lot of time concerned with App/Play Store monopolies?<p>I guess my question is, why do native apps suddenly matter so much?
I'd be curious to see the letters written directly to jeff@amazon by small businesses (3rd party merchants) which were suspended. Would be interesting to see if they:<p>* went out of business
* took predatory loans
* were given loans directly by Amazon [1].<p>[1] <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200416132704/https://sell.amazon.com/programs/amazon-lending.html" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20200416132704/https://sell.amaz...</a>
Here is the list of more such documents from the hearing: <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/online-platforms-and-market-power/" rel="nofollow">https://judiciary.house.gov/online-platforms-and-market-powe...</a>
Coincidentally, iOS 13 updated iBeacon in a way that also made it a lot less useful to developers (although there was a clear privacy benefit for users.)
>> We didn't even have a web version of the product because we believed the web was dead<p>Well he deserved what he's got...like all the people pumping up dictators because they are "good" for a short period of time just to find out later they are not so good anymore and they have no way to change that.
> When I was really upset I picked up an Android phone and after 5 mins I couldn't handle how they completely missed delighting the user over and over again<p>How many times does this guy expect to be delighted in 5 minutes?
Am I the only one that supports Apple here? As a smaller indie dev they have been great to me. The best developer support I've experienced from a company and I don't mind the 30% cut.
> In November last year the App Review team made it clear that our apps were not welcome in the
Store anymore as they actively removed our main app from the Store. They pointed to the rule
(2.26) created just a couple of years ago about what kind of apps can recommend apps other than
its own (by the way I still believe my apps fit the description). We of course have been aware of
this rule since it came out, as we already had a healthy business and significant payroll doing app
journalism. When we saw some apps get removed, it made us more steadfast in our mission.
Because we believed the fact that we were not bothered is because we were doing it the "right 11
way. We were really serving the user and the App Store. Not selling fake "recommendations" as
deceptive ads. We literally turned down millions of dollars in revenues, as developers repeatedly
asked to pay per install to be featured in our app (outside of tradition advertising). It was hard to
turn down the money even though we knew it was not right to users. One thing that made it
easier is our belief that playing it straight would keep us in the App Store and in Apple's good
graces.<p>The rule exists for precisely the reason this email notes: to prevent the selling of deceptive in-app ads. How are App Review personnel supposed to know if the in-app links to other apps are there to really "serve the user" or as paid advertising? They can't, hence the rule. I don't see this is a problem, I see this as a good thing - I don't want to be exposed to deceptive advertising.