Sure, but that’s not actually what happened. I didn’t go into detail with that part, because it’s fine. We’re fine with someone else being the publisher and listed as such though, but you’re not allowed to do that on behalf of others anymore.
The result is 98 muniplacities having to pay Apple developer fees, but it gets better because the app can’t be called the same thing anymore. So now there are 98 apps instead of one. :p
I mean, I guess our central digitisation agency should really just pick it up, but the bureaucracy doesn’t work like that.
Forgive me if I'm not understanding correctly, but in your description here it sounds like the problem is in how your organization functions around this, not in Apple's policies.
It's not really fair to expect Apple to resolve or work around your own organizational problems.
Why not? Microsoft does it all the time. So does Google, to an extend.
Apples inability to work with us is the primary reason we replaced thousands of iPads for school children with Chrome books. Eventually Apple caved to our needs, but it was way too late. Google were “what can we do to make this deal work for both of us?” from day one.
What I'm saying is that it's unfair to expect it. As in, if a company is not willing to bend over backwards for you, it's not fair to condemn them for that. It's totally fair to praise their competitors who will, though.
I wouldn’t mind I had options, but I don’t. Instead we’re the ones to bend over backwards, as you put it, because Apple has a monopoly that we’re required to use.
That seems reasonable to me -- they're just saying that if you want to be listed as the publisher, you need to be the publisher...