Apple rejects Hey for second time, threatens removal from App Store
twitter.com
twitter.com
Apple claimed that IaP was being circumvented.
This is just absurd. No serious SaaS company is going to run their users through some crazy 12-tap flow that sends people through their support pages to “cheat” Apple and signup for a paid plan. What would the conversion rate be for a flow like that? 0.00000000002%?
If a developer flagrantly violates the policy by implementing their own signup and payment collection on the first screens, we could all empathize a bit more with Apple’s position. Instead Apple chooses to throw the book at people for immaterial “violations”, without any regard to developers who are trying to participate in good faith.
On top of that, it seems to happen at random because years of App Store reviews could go by before a reviewer stumbles into the support link that’s been buried deep in the app for 3 years. Boom, there’s your conversion event that gets you to 0.00000000002%.
Basically Apple is enforcing the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law.
I'm not advocating for Apple here, this particular post just strikes me as being an odd exception.
Just a wild guess here, but it's likely they have some language like "Click here to subscribe" which sends users to an outside link. That is expressly forbidden.
UPDATE: The MacRumors story is more coherent and perhaps has a clue to why the app got rejected: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/16/apple-threatens-to-remo...
Maybe their odd "Help Me" page is shooting them in the foot. by comparison, Fastmail has a simple "Can't Log In" button which takes you to the Fastmail support page on lost passwords.
Netflix and Spotify, as well as Kindle, various news sources, etc., their apps are "readers" aka consume only.
Perhaps Hey is not a reader?
I haven't used the HEY app, but from the DHH tweets it seems they were very careful not to include those.
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/16/apple-threatens-to-remo...
This whole thing is really odd, Fastmail offers their own email service with an iOS app and they haven't had these issues. I wonder if Fastmail offers in app purchases?
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/fastmail-email-calendar/id9313...
If works exactly the same as other subscription services that only offer a subscription outside of the app.
There is no manufactured controversy here, they have not purposely done something to violate the rules just to get coverage. Their other app, Basecamp, works exactly the same.
https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/16/apple-threatens-to-remo...
Not a fan of this policy I just thought it was odd that they applied it this way. I think there are a lot of legitimate services which Apple is excluding this way.
Where in there?
Also, not trying to defend/ advocate here, just pointing it out. IMO Apple should allow companies to sell services where the bulk of expenses aren't part of the App Store experience.
They didm't.
>Apple told me that its actual mistake was approving the app in the first place, when it didn't conform to its guidelines. Apple allows these kinds of client apps — where you can't sign up, only sign in — for business services but not consumer products. That's why Basecamp, which companies typically pay for, is allowed on the App Store when Hey, which users pay for, isn't. Anyone who purchased Hey from elsewhere could access it on iOS as usual, the company said, but the app must have a way for users to sign up and pay through Apple's infrastructure. That's how Apple supports and pays for its work on the platform.
How does Netflix work on iOS again?
>>3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage, and approved services such as classroom management apps), provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods are not designed to discourage use of in-app purchase.
>Trying to join Netflix?
>You can't sign up for Netflix in the app. We know it's a hassle. After you're a member, you can start watching in the app.
And yeah, obviously you can sign in.
Fastmail offers no such options.
Oh, really? Then what's the justification for not charging a single cent for free apps? It costs Apple just as much to host the Facebook app on the App Store as it does Hey (or any other paid app). This has always been such a disingenuous argument, and there's no justification for Apple's tax to be a percentage of the app price anyway. All this does is punish developers of high quality apps. Why should a developer of a $30 app pay $10 to Apple, but a 99 cent app pays only 30 cents, and a free app pays nothing? That's an insane pricing policy.
Somewhere in the past 2 years I knew their push towards services revenue is going to take things too far. And this is it.
Unless there is something Basecamp not telling us or Apple has a better explanation this is very wrong in my book. And I have previously always sided with Apple on App Store policy.
Someone needs to explain why Fastmail, and Gmail were allowed without IAP but Hey is not.
Edit: Other mail clients under the same condition without IAP were allowed and Hey is not. And yet people still sided with Apple. Someone need to explain the downvoting.
Here’s where bathing s get annoying though; companies do this all the time. Microsoft Office , for example, has over 5 different pricing tiers for Office. They have a consumer pricing tier that matches Apple IaP pricing, then a set of a bunch of business, education, and enterprise plans. You’d have to do something like that and then negotiate with them that one of your tiers is the same price as IaP.
The point isn’t that there’s workarounds; what’s problematic is how Apple tries to tell you how to price your product and run your business, even if you try to give them a cut.
App Store is a distribution channel. And just like Best Buy wouldn't tolerate you bypassing their cut neither does Apple.
Can you clarify where they are not?
I feel there is a number that Netflix and others would be happy to pay to help onboard customers.
The difference is that Best Buy doesn't decide which appliances I can plug into my home outlet. I can buy a toaster from Walmart if I don't like Best Buy's setup, but I can't buy products from another store and put them on my iPhone.
That's not to say Apple is wrong, just that Best Buy isn't a good comparison to use. Apple is a distribution channel and a platform. Some better analogies would be Nintendo's requirement that any software running on the Switch go through their specific approval process, or maybe a printer requiring you to only buy official ink cartridges.
Users can then choose where to buy and they will obey the rules...
Or do you mean that they have the in-app purchase of that subscription and then, instead of asking $99 they'd ask
$99.00 Subscription + $29.70 Apple Fees = $128.70
Walmart and McDonald's are for more different.
Given that, these guys are on point when calling Apple's demands "a ransom". It certainly looks like one.
United States v. Microsoft Corp (2001).
> It’s their platform they can do whatever they want
Yes, unfortunately. That's good for Apple, but not good for us, so it's in our best interests if this situation changes somehow.
Honestly feel like I’m missing something.
Refusing this right is evil and should pe punished. Also, this very much helps oppressive states like Russia or China to block their citizens from accessing certain apps.
It's an Apple problem because Apple competes directly with Spotify.
Apple's own competitor (Apple Music) can avoid those overheads while offering users the convenience of in-app subscriptions. You could argue that Apple is abusing its market power in one sector to gain dominance in another, which is monopolistic and - in many countries - illegal.
In many cases it's not a great idea because it makes it look like your product is a lot more expensive than it is, and the customer has no idea there's a way to get a better price. It happened to me with Youtube Premium, I thought it was expensive at €16 (instead of €12 in reality), and only found out by chance it was the iOS pricing.
Wouldn't you look for more information outside the appstore before you buy into a subscription? I mean if you do that you should stumble upon the actual price and maybe an explanation for the higher price in the appstore.
It's less a problem for Basecamp than for Spotify, who have a more mainstream product and audience.
> 3.1.3(b) [...] You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase.
from https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#mul...
Yes, but I'd point out that it is Apple giving their own customers the finger here, not Hey.
At least it will make the non dev users aware of the app store tax bs.
Apple bans you from adding ANY information to your app that indicates they can pay somewhere else.
Would apple be able to tell what content they are serving? Is that still against the ToS?
I’m pretty sure that means you’re not allowed to let the user know in any way, even on your site, that they can get a better deal than the IAP.
Besides, apple clearly intends to get a cut of hey’s business. If they find a loophole, it will be closed soon enough.
People would realize that an email app could not cost that much, and so would look to sign up on the website.
I wonder if that would work.
How can you say that, realistically, the way forward for a company is to just drop one of the largest computing environments (iOS/App Store), even if a company would prefer to do that they can't because that would hurt their shareholders. If a smaller company then you are ostracised to a smaller market because of a bully company.
Yeah, Apple may start to bleed developers the more they start to be bullish but that doesn't mean they will lose users, and users attract developers. It's the same case as Uber: you encroach the base your business model depends on (driver/developer) into your influence while holding the bag that are their customers (riders/app users) and start to bleed them out slowly, upping the fees, adding more requirements for them to be allowed inside your walls, etc., until the breaking point, then recede a bit. Rinse and repeat.
Anti-trust exists to tame this, it's time for Apple to be challenged on their free reign.
> Netflix is no longer allowing new customers on iOS to pay for the streaming service directly through an in-app subscription. It’s the latest example of a company with a high-profile, essential mobile app ditching Apple’s payment system to retain more profits for itself and stop handing the iPhone and iPad maker a cut of every subscription activated within the Netflix app. VentureBeat first reported the change, which Netflix confirmed with a short “we no longer support iTunes as a method of payment for new members” statement.
My Netflix's "account" section has nothing but a notice that says "Please go to Netflix on the web to manage your account."
Why would Hey be any different here?
No.
If this goes outside of their official rules, it's a big deal. If it's in line with them, it's par for the course. I think some important details are missing from the source.
AFAIK you weren't required to implement in-app purchases for each subscription offering available outside of the app. That seems to be the change to the guideline or something that is now being enforced that was always there. This is a non-trivial integration to build and maintain. Not only will this have a real cost in engineering hours but the 30% fee is absurd - made more so by the fact that you cannot even inform your customers of the option to subscribe out of the app. I'd happily enable in-app purchases and increase the price 30% with help text that says "Want to save 30% - subscribe on the website HERE"
Netflix removed their in-app purchase options years ago. When you open the app it says you have to sign up on the website and provides no content or other utility without signing in. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
So you're not paying for store hosting, payment features etc.
You're paying for access to tens of millions of willing buyers.
With Apple marketing your competitor's apps even if a willing buyer is specifically looking for your app by its exact name.
The "channel to market"
there is no other channel on the iphone.
I'll give an example I have lived myself: I developed a free app that was requested by some doctors to help them cope with the pandemic. The app was first rejected because "too simple". I appealed and they accepted it. Happy ending.
Now, the episode in itself doesn't tell anything, but it made me think: what if they kept rejecting it? What power did I have? Why should patients be denied that piece of software on THEIR phones, because a company decides that it's not cool enough? The problem lies with Google as well but, at least, it is possible to distribute apps through other channels on their phones.
I really think that there is no excuse for Apple: their devices are locked, their users are stuck with what the company decides to do with them and treated like idiots. They are a threat to business and innovation (unless it's theirs of course). Reminds me of Microsoft in the 90s...
They already have a web client which is all server rendered with Rails and uses Turbolinks. If I'm not mistaken they also use this approach for the Basecamp iOS app [1].
It also showcases a Turbolinks version for iOS which works differently as it connects with the native app for changing views etc.
The guy in the video still works at Basecamp and worked on HEY too so I assume they used Turbolinks for iOS.
But, as paulgb pointed out in another comment, Safari for iOS hasn't implemented push notifications from web apps which is probably a deal breaker for most users of an email app.
It could be called "Web Events Notifier" or something. Perhaps it could include a UI for managing which PWAs you want to receive notifications for and maybe even a catalog of publicly participating PWAs.
I don't see any TOS that would forbid it.
It is somewhat cumbersome though.
[0] Although local storage is actually now considered volatile in iOS: https://www.itnews.com.au/news/apple-cops-flak-for-deleting-...
This is similar to what Wix requires when you develop for their platform. Wix requires developers to profit share 20% of your revenue for any customers that just so happen to use the part of your app that communicates with Wix. Why do platforms continue to think they're entitled to such a thing? And why would any developer want to integrate with Wix with such a clause?
Might be true that they deserve a cut if the app store wasn’t a monopoly. You’re not opting into a relationship with apple, they’re holding everybody with an iPhone hostage for 30% of your revenue.
1. I don’t game
2. consequently games seem less important to quality-of-life than phones do to me
3. The ecosystem of “things i can play a game on” is pretty diverse. Xbox and ps are big players but pc gaming is WIDE open and then there’s mobile gaming as well.
I heard few stories about the devs bouncing off the Oculus store though. There aren't many games, so it's a honeypot for many developers but then they find out their game won't be released because of some reason (game like this exists, we don't like experience, experience is subpar) and so on.
All that, and my feeling that we need real antitrust in most realms of commerce, means i would much prefer to be able to vote with my vote for representatives with teeth
I've had a couple of apps in the iOS and macOS stores that couldn't be accessed unless you paid for a service outside the app.
In fact, when submitting an app for review you can provide a user and password so that Apple can log in and test the private app.
I think this was allowed because as someone else mentioned there are some exceptions to this rule. This was an education app which gave access to some digital books.
It isn't. Go read the guidelines again.
>3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage, and approved services such as classroom management apps), provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods are not designed to discourage use of in-app purchase.
It's right there in black and white under the "In-App Purchases" section.
> “Trying to join Netflix?” it reads. “You can’t sign up for Netflix in the app. We know it’s a hassle. After you’re a member, you can start watching in the app.” Bizarrely, it gives no further instructions on how or where to go if you want to sign up for Netflix: no URL, no QR code, not even a hint of how to join. If you aren’t already a member, it’s a complete dead end.
That’s not a bug. It’s a function of Apple policy. With some exceptions, the company doesn’t let users pay app makers directly for their apps or digital services. They can only pay Apple, which takes a 30% cut of all revenue and then passes 70% to the developer. (For subscription services, which account for the majority of App Store revenues, that 30% cut drops to 15% after the first year.) To tighten its grip, Apple prohibits the affected apps from even telling users how they can pay their creators directly.
https://onezero.medium.com/apples-secret-monopoly-5718272c16...
It's not possible to initiate one.
Personally, I've always felt that 30% was far, far too high for an app store. It's clearly a case of captive markets. I remember being just as annoyed 17 years ago in high school; upperclassmen were allowed to leave school during lunch and go to Little Caesars and get a whole pepperoni pizza for $5. Lowerclassmen were not allowed to leave school for lunch and had to buy food in the cafeteria where a single slice of pizza was $4.50 --- it was clearly predatory pricing. I personally went out, got a $5 large pizza with 8 slices, sold 4 slices at $1 each to classmates and enjoyed my half pizza for $1 every day. But it was a pretty infuriating situation to me, as the students themselves had no choice or control over the market, despite deploying a huge amount of economic purchasing power every day.
I don't think the app store itself is adding that much value (30%). I believe Apple's practices are probably currently legal (at least according to my lay interpretation of monopoly practices) - Apple simply doesn't have a monopoly on the market of phone apps when you consider that consumers can choose to switch to Android. Hey! can access 120 million Americans through android and/or 100 million Americans through iOS. If apple cuts them out of 45% of the market, they still have 55% remaining to access. They can even still just have their users go to their website to read email via the Safari browser.
Obviously the U.S. Government (various branches) occasionally change how they feel about things even without any substantive changes in statutory or constitutional law. So I make no predictions at all as to what happens in the next 5 years.
However, I can say what I'd like to see to improve innovation in Silicon Valley (and I would LOVE feedback on this idea, to improve it and help to make the idea better)
Primarily I'd like to see any internal API's that are used between business segments to be granted the same access at the same cost to third parties. For example:
- Google's "Popular Times" feature comes from Google Places (I think) and is used by Google Maps. However, third parties still have no access to this.
- iOS messaging could be accessible by XMPP or similar open protocols, same with Discord, Microsoft Teams, Skype for Business, etc.
- Instagram live broadcasts could be searched and accessed by API
etc etc.
I don't personally think there's a legal basis for compelling this right now, but statutory changes that promote something LIKE it would really be amazing for innovation. Letting _small companies_ compete with _small pieces_ of large companies would give consumers access to high quality alternatives for every service they need. I think it would also make the web more "hackable" (extensible) by teens and hobbyists, and likely propel our field forward immensely.
The walled gardens can be great options for convenient security (Apple's doing fairly well here honestly, even if not fantastically). But I'd like consumers to be able to access the data however is most convenient for them.
I've made extremely similar comments as this one of yours, very recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23179393 and much to my (chagrin/horror/disgust), it's my highest rated comment ever. I wish upvotes were more correlated to effort and quality, but I always remember Wynton Marsalis saying in an interview: .
> In high school, I learned a breathing technique so I could play a continuous trumpet solo for 10 minutes without stopping for a breath. But my father told me, “Son, those who play for applause, thatʼs all they get.”
> They can even still just have their users go to their website to read email via the Safari browser.
But their iOS users would lose push notifications which are quite essential for an email app.
Then there are some services with enough leverage that it makes sense for Apple not ask them for Apple Tax. It also saves more time for Apple to keep taking this tax from others that don't have leverage to fight back.
But it is a product that have a very aggressive marketing strategy. Arrogant.
The only thing I read from this episode is: The product is like this, the billing service is like that. We won't change anything and if you don't like it, you're wrong. Unfortunately, there is no chance that I will ever use this product. The price is stratospheric for me and probably for 98% of those who use gmail. Prontonmail, for example, offers several options, including a free one.
Well, apple also offers a service. What they are asking is for them to make a concession. But they don't seem willing to concede anything to that negotiation.
I imagine that this could be circumvented with other exclusive plans to subscribe using apple pay, or a free and very reduced version. It doesn't seem like a radical position from apple, which was the impression I got from reading the tweets alone.
Well, Gmail appears to have about 1.5 billion active users: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/26/gmail-dominates-consumer-ema...
2% of 1.5b is 30,000,000. I think Hey will be okay with only $2,970,000,000 per annum. :)
But my point is, they offer a premium service and have the possibility to get around this problem by negotiating since the mistake was theirs in not interpreting apple rules correctly.
[1]https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-j....
And I wasn't wrong, that's what Phil Schiller suggested:
“One way that HEY could have gone...is to offer a free or paid version of the app with basic email reading features on the App Store, then separately offered an upgraded email service that worked with the Hey app on iOS on its own website.”
And that is exactly what they did to get approved.
"So now we offer this new free option, and the multi-user HEY for Work — all in the same iOS app. "
https://hey.com/apple/path/ https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/18/interview-apples-schiller-...
And the list goes on.
EDIT: Of all the things that HN would consider controversial, I did not expect an inane comment on walled gardens to be it.
This is in contrast to Alphabet and Amazon which have much stronger dominant positions and don't have comparable competitors.
What I can’t seem to ignore is just how worked up DHH seems to get on Twitter sometimes.
This thread is 20 tweets in a row, not including his replies. To be fair, it is less profane and numerous than the Apple Card one[0]
[0] https://mobile.twitter.com/dhh/status/1192540900393705474
What if they say you can’t have a web app, you can only have an iOS and Android app?
What if they say they no competing services are allowed, so every iCloud, Apple news, weather etc. competitor is gone?
On the whole, I’m kinda glad on the timing of this one. One can only hope that this brings in some positive changes from Apple within a few months. It’s long due.
Maybe before you go griping about technical details in Apple's App Store rules, Hey/Basecamp should have considered not blaspheming (unfairly) Apple's Email platform (among others) on their home page:
> "You started getting stuff you didn’t want from people you didn’t know. You lost control over who could reach you. An avalanche of automated emails cluttered everything up.
And Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo, and Apple just let it happen."
Pretty snarky of Jason Fried & Co. to accuse Apple of being the reason I lost control of my Inbox, and then beg and cajole Apple to let them have their Hey App on iOS without allowing a signup option via Apple's massive eco-system.
Typical Small Dev Thinking. "Hey is different and Apple is Evil and We have Single-handedly solved all the problems that Apple created! Oh, by the way, can we please be in the App Store so we can have access to Apple's bajillions of customers and $$$ so we can make a few $100k because the economy is tanking?".
Worse of all? Hey lied. Through the teeth.
Nearly all of their Top 20 "features" have been available via Apple's Email service for years, and in some cases decades, and most are also available via other email services like Gmail.
https://mrtechimist.wordpress.com/2020/06/16/apples-email-an...
This is probably the lowest skullduggery that Fried & Co have attempted to foist on the unsuspecting public. I'm personally surprised and have always been a fan of their work. Don't know what's going on under the covers over there, but it can't be good.
It might be nice to believe you can snip at a company’s products (and in this case, using false claims), and believe it won’t affect at all a separate issue (App Store submissions), but that’s not the real world.
Sometimes, you attract attention by antics. Maybe Fried and Co. are learning a small lesson about the real world.
Aside from all that, this whining about how Apple is keeping them from profits is a bit nauseating. Their sad product (Hey) is keeping them from profits.
Deliberately break rules so Apple rejects their code.
So it’s a marketing stunt designed to get a product into the front page of Hacker News.
But that would never happen of course... HEY!!
Do you really think DHH is surprised by the commission rules at Apple? Do you really think said bugs aren’t deliberate?
DHH is playing everyone folks. But he certainly has an army of fanboys here who downvote all the threads suggesting this is a marketing stunt.
Fake news in the truest sense.
You literally cannot even inform the user that there is another way for them to pay.
This is shitty. Apple benefits from developers making great apps on their platform, just as developers benefit from being on their platform. It's a symbiotic relationship, but Apple takes up to 30% of your profit which does not feel respectful of what developers are bringing to the table, which is often Apple first, quality apps.
If you're using, say, Stripe for your payment processing then you can offer the user a choice if they'd pay through Stripe or Apple pay. If you do not have your own payment processor for mobile payments, then you use only Apple pay. If you do, then you have to include Apple as an option.
I've been releasing apps with this in the past few years, it's been a requirement all along.
I was just opposing the statement that you cannot offer another way of payment in an iOS app, that part is just not true.
No, you cannot use Stripe for software subscriptions. Stripe (non-Apple pay) can only be used for physical goods, or sale of services rendered outside of iOS/MacOS.
In other words, can only be used for non-digital sales. The context of this conversation is the Hey app, which is a software subscription, so no... there is no other way to pay.
Apple is saying that because Hey offers a subscription elsewhere, Hey should provide an in-app purchase as well, despite other apps not being forced to do this.
Letting apps link out to websites for paywalls circumvents all of this. If I was in Apple's position I'd limit that as well.
They take 30% of your gross revenue. If you spent $x on development and marketing of your app, and generated $1.5x from iOS, they take away $0.45x and you're left with $1.05x which is actually a lot worse than if they only took 30% of your profit, which would be $0.15x.
https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272976901762478080
"We noticed that your app allows customers to access content, subscriptions, or features they have purchased elsewhere, but those items were not available as in-app purchases within the app."
"Since the email services offered in your app are not the type listed under guideline 3.1.3(a) for 'Reader' apps, customers must be able to purchase access to features or functionality in your app using in-app purchase."
This would ban Gmail, Netflix, and many others that handle payment entirely off-app. I can't pay for my GSuite via IAP, but I'm still allowed to use the Gmail app for it.
nope. you can buy netflix subscriptions as an IAP https://apps.apple.com/us/app/netflix/id363590051
They turned these off in 2018 (https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/28/18159373/netflix-in-app-...) and my "account" page in the Netflix app just tells me to go to Netflix.com to adjust everything.
Recently I was looking at iOS hacks that turn the volume buttons into application controls, you know how both Snapchat and the native Camera app work. This is explicitly prohibited, but I would bet that Snapchat has threatened to sue over it, which is why it still works for them.
I'd gladly take that bet. Just preferential treatment for a large customer and is very common.
Apps like Facebook, Netflix, and Snapchat are going to be on a first-name basis with their peers at Apple/Google and are going to have relationships and cards to pull that most others do not. Same is true for any b2b relationship, whether it's auto manufacturers/dealers or advertisers/publishers. Big customers get perks.
A lawsuit! That’s the theory, there is at least enough legal ground to cause damage (even if they can’t win in court). But maybe you are right and most cases like this are handled smoothly without conflict.
Is that even needed? Imagine iOS without Gmail (or perhaps all Google apps) and Netflix. That would significantly affect the value of an iPhone to an individual consumer. And in Netflix's case, it's not like Apple can just roll their own version and push that to users (since Apple TV+ is quite sad).
Spotify and Netflix have never offered subscriptions within their app - you can use the app to access those services, but you must subscribe on the web first.
Or maybe it really was just accidental, who knows. But it is certainly having that effect, intended or not.
"I don't think people understand. We did everything we were supposed to with the iOS app. Try downloading it (while you can?). You can't sign up, because Apple says no. We don't mention subscriptions. You can't upgrade. You can't access billing. We did all of it! Wasn't enough."
If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps.
What prompted such a bizarre official policy? Hundreds of cases of Apple unfairly, inconsistently and even stupidly rejecting apps, rejecting appeals, rejecting their own rules, stonewalling developers. All of this is apart from the platform abuse that caused their anti-trust cases.
One of Apple's diligent prudes discovered that the Kama Sutra was among the books Eucalyptus could access
The dictionary app was denied access three times due to "objectionable" words users could find in its dictionary.
our app was rejected simply because we published a news story about jailbreaking
They are going to make mistakes and there are going to be inconsistencies in how they approach certain apps. Especially since the policies have evolved over the last decade or so.
Also the AppleInsider one is just wrong. I remember that one and it was approved shortly after that article.
> They are going to make mistakes and there are going to be inconsistencies in how they approach certain apps. Especially since the policies have evolved over the last decade or so.
Apple's the one who made it a walled-garden. They're the ones that made the rules. They're the ones that made the escalation procedures. They're the ones who have managed to not be consistent.
If you make literally all the rules and the rules ABOUT the rules and you still have bad outcomes there's nobody to blame but you. Which is exactly what people are complaining about.
Nobody put a gun to Apple's head for any of these things. One might argue that with YouTube the whole ContentID fiasco wasn't really their idea insofar as YouTube was going to get sued into oblivion by the music/movie industry if they didn't provide some tools.
This is categorically Apple's domain and they're the ones who made all the problems. People's expectations aren't unreasonable in my opinion. It's pretty common to want rules to be enforced fairly and impartially.
>3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage, and approved services such as classroom management apps), provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods are not designed to discourage use of in-app purchase.
[1] https://www.protocol.com/hey-email-app-store-rejection
[2] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
Also, how come the Basecamp app has been allowed to operate for 7 years and is totally useless without a Basecamp user?
You can sign in and purchase elsewhere, then get the credentials and login on the app. It's fine, countless apps are like that. But if you do offer purchases with the app, Apple requires that you use the in-app purchase mechanism.
Hey could easily offer a $15/mo plan through Apple, and still clear more money than the $99/yr external offering.
Instead of quietly using this tactic, they are utilizing Apple to stoke outrage and garner attention. May be brash but it is not a terrible strategy. I have no sympathy for Apple- this is the exact position they have put themselves in.
App store agreement from the parent comment:
>and your general communications about other purchasing methods are not designed to discourage use of in-app purchase.
I'd say that making IAP more expensive would count as "discourag[ing] use of in-app purchase"
So, I really doubt they would "clearly make more money".
Hey currently charges $99/yr. If they added an IAP tier of $15/mo, and Apple takes 30%, that leaves $126/yr. (Clearly more money, in my humble calculation)
Additionally, "IAP customers will pay more" is actually in clear breach of App Store policy: you cannot price differentiate iOS purchases.
No, they can't. You're not allowed to charge more money for an in-app subscription.
DHH is a popular person. He gets people to change their behaviors when he calls them out (see his prior Twitter rants, I can’t recall any examples other than Zoom, etc). DHH even admits that he is popular and may be able to get the rules changed for himself, which is probably a big reason he is being vocal - small developers do not have the same platform as a Formula 1 hundred-millionaire who also created RoR.
I was forced to use a MacBook at my last job for 2 years because the CEO was a Steve Jobs fan. It's a terrible machine. If I had to summarize Apple with just one word, it would be "restrictive". It's like you need a license to do anything, run any program, write any program. It's like you don't even own the damn machine, it owns you.
I understand why some developers may want to stay away from Windows but Apple is not the answer. Linux distros are really quite good these days. I highly recommend the new version of Kubuntu v20.
The defaults are kind of ugly (no idea why they would do that to themselves) but you can customize the theme and it can look amazing. Ubuntu is not bad but Kubuntu was an eye-opener for me in terms of usability and customizability.
I can do a "brew install" or "brew cask install" and have thousands of apps installed. I write apps in Scala, Rust, Golang and C++ with zero issues.
At no point have I needed a license for anything.
For a recent open source project, I had to take down the OSX version of our pre-built client because it would not let users run the app without giving them a warning and force them to change their settings.
It's extremely restrictive. Especially to a developer. Even after 2 years, I could not get over having to push the Cmd button with the side of my thumb.
I'm at least 2x faster and more productive on a Dell or HP machine with Ubuntu or Kubuntu installed. The workspaces feature and customizability on Kubuntu is mind-blowing.
KDE Neon here. Love it!
That’s very simple. Most of users aren’t professionals and want platform that works out-of-the-box. They don’t customize. They don’t change anything. They don’t want or know how to side-load an app... they are just normal users which are majority of Apple clients. :)
Why so many people have a problem with understanding that professional users (developers, designers, etc) aren’t most important, or even better, the only one using Apple hardware?
BTW. And with those users in mind I would love to have more walled gardens everywhere. As they don’t care about their tech-savvy part of life, approach like this can minimize their lost from stupid actions.
At least that's my personal experience.