Or maybe it really was just accidental, who knows. But it is certainly having that effect, intended or not.
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 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.