> Why do App Store customers have any need to contact the underlying developers in this scenario?

The EU decided so, and Apple didn't require this before EU did

I find this hard to believe, since Google Play store requires much less info, and doesn't disclose it to consumers (AFAIK).

Did the EU specifically demand this from Apple? Did they specifically require that consumers must be able to contact developers?

Or is this another "spin" by Apple to make the EU look bad when it imposes consumer protection that is bad for Apples revenue? Like they did with "chargers", "cables" and like the ad- and surveillance-industry has done quite successfully with their "spin" on the GDPR (making it seem like the EU or GDPR requires cookie banners - which it doesnt)

I'm not published in Google Play and don't have Android to check for myself, but when I look it up, I find claims that they do publish names and addresses for paid apps / apps with in-app purchases, due to the same EU law.

I'm pretty sure the Google Play Store does require this. I remember a few years ago (no longer at the company) having to verify a phone number and maybe address that is posted publicly.

> I find this hard to believe, since Google Play store requires much less info, and doesn't disclose it to consumers (AFAIK).

This changed recently.

> However, if you’re running your own website you can make those decisions on your own without being forced into most of them.

You will however pay for that privilege - a lot of people don't seem to realise their home address is in the WHOIS data, because they didn't pay the protection money to redact it

How far down does this go? Should I be able to contact the individual person who picked the specific strawberries in my carton of strawberries?

In the Walmart t-shirt example, should I have the contact info for not only the factory but the other suppliers who made the dyes, threads, cotton, the people who made the fuel for the harvester, the people who welded the tractor together?

Sure, maybe your idealist answer is yes, and on a conceptual level I can agree with that. But from a practical standpoint as the end consumer there is a stopping point.

My point is that Apple handles the money and the refunds, and they make all the software APIs. Completely closed platform. Why doesn’t the buck stop there? I feel like they pass along business responsibilities despite taking a large percentage of revenue.

If they’re going to pass on all those responsibilities for me then their cut should be more like ~5% to just cover transaction and platform costs.

> How far down does this go? Should I be able to contact the individual person who picked the specific strawberries in my carton of strawberries?

Down to the manufacturer of the whole product you're buying. In the case of your strawberries that would probably be the farmer.

> In the Walmart t-shirt example, should I have the contact info for not only the factory but the other suppliers who made the dyes, threads, cotton, the people who made the fuel for the harvester, the people who welded the tractor together?

No.

> Sure, maybe your idealist answer is yes, but from a practical standpoint as the end consumer there is a stopping point.

Of course there is. But you as the sole dev of an app are not at that point.

> My point is that Apple handles the money and the refunds, and they make all the software APIs. Completely closed platform. Why doesn’t the buck stop there?

My local electronics shop also handles the money and refunds when I buy a Dell. I can still get a refund directly from Dell if my machine breaks (not that I actually have a Dell). Yay reasonable laws.

The platform being closed and all the APIs being controlled by Apple are different problems that should be solved separately (which the EU is working on!).

> Down to the manufacturer of the whole product you're buying.

In case of an app, what is the "product" you are buying? Because according to Apple, they add a lot of "value" by ensuring the software is safe, performant, etc etc. Am I not buying "a safe, checked app"? Or am I buying an app and then separately pay Apple for an added service of "checking the app for safety" etc etc. I'd very much presume the first.

But if its separate, "an app" can be rather ambigous. For a one-time-purchase game, its clear. But many apps are really a service or even more that happen to have "an app" as one of the ways to interact with the service: Netflix, Uber, protonmail, Vinted (or ebay), etc etc: the app isn't the thing I buy. It's a wrapper around a service. Or even just one of the portals through which I can buy stuff. Point being: It's not simple, so your answers don't fit the analogy of "wallmart".

> In case of an app, what is the "product" you are buying?

The app.

> Because according to Apple, they add a lot of "value" by ensuring the software is safe, performant, etc etc. Am I not buying "a safe, checked app"? Or am I buying an app and then separately pay Apple for an added service of "checking the app for safety" etc etc. I'd very much presume the first.

If you want to, you can imagine the 30% cut being that separate service, but most analyses I've seen of this assume the first is the case, and I can't really see why it wouldn't be.

> But many apps are really a service or even more that happen to have "an app" as one of the ways to interact with the service: Netflix, Uber, protonmail, Vinted (or ebay), etc etc: the app isn't the thing I buy.

In those cases the app on the App Store is free, so there's nothing a consumer can really complain about, since they haven't bought anything. You can complain about the service rendered when you pay, but that purchase is handled completely separately from the app (non-)purchase.

> Point being: It's not simple, so your answers don't fit the analogy of "wallmart".

It does for apps bought as products. If you want an analogy for apps bought as services, then I'll use a different analogy, since they behave differently, and are treated differently in law.

I think a good analogy for this difference would be this:

Walmart sells both fresh/frozen/packaged food (lots of food safety regulations) and t-shirts (few regulations by comparison). They also sell things like cell phone plans and subscription services that have entirely different sets of regulations.

Exactly as you described, if I make a specific type of app, maybe the business address and responsible party should really be Apple. If I make a subscription service app, then it should be me.

If your app is paid, there should be a business behind it, which has a business address and other associated contacts.

Replace 'app' with literally any other product or service in that sentence, and it still seems reasonable to me. You should be able to reach the producer of your frozen nuggies from Walmart, as well as the manufacturer of their t-shirts.

If your product or service is free, then a lot of that flies out the window (assuming it isn't actively hurting someone). Netflix's free app doesn't really do anything if you don't pay, but since it's free, you can't bring a claim to Netflix to complain about it, since you haven't paid for anything. The moment you pay for service though, then your right to complain if there's a fault in the service kicks in, which may or may not involve the free app (which Netflix is pointing you to and telling you to use to use their service). Once a consumer has paid for something, they should be able to follow the trail back to whomever made the product they're using.

> Am I not buying "a safe, checked app"?

I wouldn't presume that. Malware ends up in the app store all the time.

I was merely re-iterating the marketing from Apple on why they charge the 30%.

I personally think it's a lie at best, or a scam (on multinational level) at worst. I've always been convinced that regulation should force companies that make such statements to be held responsible. Treat them like an insurance company or such.

I pay a few dollars every month to be protected against scams and malware. So when I do get infected, Apple failed to do what I paid it for and Apple should be forced to pay me for damages.

I see your point and I think it's a reasonable one.

I know this may seem like moving goalposts, but I forgot to mention another point here, which is that I'm perfectly happy with allowing my customers to reach me by mail and they actually can reach me that way. What I'm much less okay with is someone knowing where my family and I sleep.

I have a mail forwarding service so that I don't have to give out my home address. If you send me mail to that address, I will see it!

It's another cost and hassle to have to set this up just to avoid the rare but possible doxxing situation that comes along with putting things out in public. The other part of this is that big corporations are obviously much better equipped to handle this scenario and they don't represent a single person's reputation or literal home in the same way.

I realize that addresses aren't really private but you never know what can happen. Maybe my app blows up and goes viral, there's some kind of controversy that gets out of my control via the media or something like that, and now my App Store listing for my viral app has my home address and a bunch of people on the Internet start sending me poop in the mail.

Now, all of this may be more of the fault of EU regulations and that's also perfectly fine but it makes me wonder a little bit if there can't be some kind of solution that is compliant but a little friendlier to small/solo businesses? If it's not possible I can definitely accept that.

> I know this may seem like moving goalposts, but I forgot to mention another point here, which is that I'm perfectly happy with allowing my customers to reach me by mail and they actually can reach me that way. What I'm much less okay with is someone knowing where my family and I sleep.

> I have a mail forwarding service so that I don't have to give out my home address. If you send me mail to that address, I will see it!

In this case you have an address where people can reach you. I have no problem doing things this way. And even if you were a knobhead who only did that to fulfil the regulations and ignored any actual mail going to that address, being able to send mail there, have it go in a black hole, and then be able to go to whatever consumer protection agency and tell them 'I mailed them a letter and they never responded' has value in and of itself for the consumer.

> It's another cost and hassle to have to set this up just to avoid the rare but possible doxxing situation that comes along with putting things out in public. The other part of this is that big corporations are obviously much better equipped to handle this scenario and they don't represent a single person's reputation or literal home in the same way.

> I realize that addresses aren't really private but you never know what can happen. Maybe my app blows up and goes viral, there's some kind of controversy that gets out of my control via the media or something like that, and now my App Store listing for my viral app has my home address and a bunch of people on the Internet start sending me poop in the mail.

Fair point that it's a hassle for you as an individual. I get that you don't want to be doxxed. In an ideal world the people doxxing you would be prosecuted for doing that, but that's probably a big ask if you're in the US, at least from what I can tell. In Europe from what I can tell, while it's not a non-issue, it usually doesn't get worse than verbal abuse and people being angry on the internet, and while nobody deserves death threats, at least it's just words and not, ya know, letter bombs or swatting. Even relatively 'minor' offences caused by going viral, like stalking, are prosecuted and dealt with from what I can tell (exceptions obviously exist in both directions).

> Now, all of this may be more of the fault of EU regulations and that's also perfectly fine but it makes me wonder a little bit if there can't be some kind of solution that is compliant but a little friendlier to small/solo businesses? If it's not possible I can definitely accept that.

I'm not sure what can be done beyond loosing the restrictions on the little guy, but I'm not sure if there's much political will for that (and don't get me wrong when I say this, but also, good reason). If there's a reasonable solution that upholds consumer protections and rights, I'm open for it.