> Concretely about this post: it seems really naive!
Proton Mail is not just an app. It's going to be up to the courts to re-affirm that a private party cannot force another party to give them profits of an unrelated product.
These kinds of "deals" are partially what got the Teamsters in trouble and are characteristic of the criminal mobs (which included the mafia). "I heard you have a second job selling stocks, be a real same if something happened to your app" - classic protection racket.
Calling others naive does not make your stance compelling.
Apple is giving Proton Mail the opportunity to come on to their platform and make more revenue. They are not forcing them on to their platform. If Apple didn’t exist, PM would simply not even have this opportunity. Mobs come into your business and demand revenue. Here proton mail is coming into Apple’s business and demanding revenue. Who’s the mob here?
And yeah, word choice matters if you want to be credible and taken seriously. I called the tone of this post naive because “stumbled into some plans” all innocent-like is comically naive from a large company that openly sells plans, wants access to a third party market place, and acts like they’re entitled to that marketplace for free. Instead of projecting competence and offering a compelling legal argument, the post plays dumb, which is sad when coming from a company that sells global security. You’re a company selling me encrypted messaging and you’re confused by Apple’s highly readable store rules?
Compelling via contractual agreement. This is typically referred to as "forcing" a conditiobn. Classic enforcement of a clause.
> Apple is giving Proton Mail the opportunity to come on to their platform and make more revenue.
No. That is not what Apple is granting PM. Me putting up a hello world app does not grant me an opportunity to make more (any) revenue. There are additional concerns and limitations.
> They are not forcing them on to their platform.
Correct.
> If Apple didn’t exist, PM would simply not even have this opportunity.
Incorrect. If Apple and Apple USERS didn't exist, PM would not be able to be utilized by those users from an Apple device (since nothing else is special about the platform). This is a matter of perspective which we fundamentally disagree on.
> Mobs come into your business and demand revenue.
That is one of many tactics.
> Here proton mail is coming into Apple’s business and demanding revenue.
Incorrect.
This is tiresome.
It's not really worth picking apart your statements when you are disingenuously starting from :
> if you want to be credible and taken seriously
Name calling and no-true-scotsman is all heresay or noise. The courts can (and eventually will) decide what is acceptable. Things are not looking good when a business starts squeezing blood from the stone (Apple's own market).
Having read over your arguments, I'm not sure what I could add. I'm not sure how any of it negates anything I said. I sincerely suspect they're too sophisticated for me. I have no legal training.
> Compelling via contractual agreement. This is typically referred to as "forcing" a conditiobn. Classic enforcement of a clause.
What does this mean? Classic enforcement of a clause? What is wrong with enforcing a clause?
> No. That is not what Apple is granting PM. Me putting up a hello world app does not grant me an opportunity to make more (any) revenue. There are additional concerns and limitations.
What does a hello world app have to do with this? We're talking about apps that have plans for sale and provide value. If you read App Store Guidelines, there is a specific term that says apps must provide users some specific, ongoing value. Hello world would be rejected from the App Store on this ground alone.
> Incorrect. If Apple and Apple USERS didn't exist, PM would not be able to be utilized by those users from an Apple device (since nothing else is special about the platform).
I don't understand this at all. Why add the users into the mix? How is nothing else special about the platform? Everything about the platform is totally special.
> Name calling and no-true-scotsman is all heresay or noise.
Could be possible, for sure. I'm prone to that type of thinking, but I'm not sure this is it. There's something pretty unsettling to me about a grown person, operating a very serious business, writing like they didn't understand the rules of something actually very simple. Is that an "ad-hominem", no-true-scotsman maneuver? Maybe? But it seems very relevant that here we are hashing out the merits of legalese arguments; whereas OP is just like "hey we were, like, selling some plans over there on the side and out of nowhere Apple just comes and demands money!!?" Does this person, who runs Proton Mail, live under a rock? Do they not read tech news? More importantly, do they not review the terms of the agreements they enter? Do they expect Apple not to enforce their contracts? Do they enforce contracts? It just seems fake and disingenuous. That's very significant, in my opinion, because fake and disingenuous people are, by and large, fundamentally bad. But that's just what I think.
Will definitely evaluate your analysis carefully, though.
Proton Mail is not just an app. It's going to be up to the courts to re-affirm that a private party cannot force another party to give them profits of an unrelated product.
These kinds of "deals" are partially what got the Teamsters in trouble and are characteristic of the criminal mobs (which included the mafia). "I heard you have a second job selling stocks, be a real same if something happened to your app" - classic protection racket.
Calling others naive does not make your stance compelling.