Hacker News Reader

Comment by Traster | Hacker News Reader

I don't think picking a fight with Apple as a PR strategy is a good move. The rules on the app store are very clear, if you're charging a subscription for functionality you're providing through an iOS app, that subscription must be available through Apple's payment system. I know people don't like that, but it's not unexpected. So given that Hey knew the rules, it seems a bit manipulative for them to submit their app and then go on a massive PR campaign about how outraged they are. I understand that they may feel that the app store rules are unfair, but this whole fanfare seems ridiculous to me. Instead they seem to think that they're going to benefit from picking a fight with Apple - it reminds of small youtubers who make expose videos about big youtubers to try and get people''s attention.

View on HN

>The rules on the app store are very clear

Are they? According to Protocol.com, which got in contact with Apple over the thing:

>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.

But if I search for the word "consumer" in the App Store Review Guidelines, the only result is the following:

>Data gathered from the HomeKit API, HealthKit, Consumer Health Records API, MovementDisorder APIs, ClassKit or from depth and/or facial mapping tools (e.g. ARKit, Camera APIs, or Photo APIs) may not be used for marketing, advertising or use-based data mining, including by third parties. Learn more about best practices for implementing CallKit, HealthKit, ClassKit, and ARKit.

Is there another set of rules that actually covers the things that Apple says if the rules are "very clear"?

> >Apple allows these kinds of client apps — where you can't sign up, only sign in — for business services but not consumer products.

Does that mean Netflix is a "business service" and not a consumer product?

Netflix is excluded by the "Reader exception".

>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.

According to Apple/Phil Schiller, any application not explicitly mentioned in this category must offer subscriptions as IAP.

>"We didn't extend these exceptions to all software," said Schiller. "Email is not and has never been an exception included in this rule."

Gmail doesn't actually have to offer Google One subscriptions through the Gmail application. I imagine they are covered by the "cloud storage" exception, which makes me wonder if Hey could also get around it by giving Hey users some cloud storage with their email subscription.

> provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase

Netflix does exactly this. In fact, Hey uses nearly the exact same wording that Netflix does, almost word-for-word.

It's hilarious to me that an app that exists to let you read email is not covered under a "reader" exception.

It is very unclear. The rule has been that you cannot advertise that it requires a subscription or provide a link.

There are literally a dozen apps that I am personally aware of that require subscriptions and don’t allow in app subscriptions.

- Netflix

- Sling TV

- ATT Now (DirecTVNow)

- ACloudGuru

- Kindle

- Youtube TV

- Spotify

- Microsoft Office

- Hulu Live TV (not regular Hulu)

Well yeah, people & companies with a lot of money get a different set of rules. That's the same in the app store as it is in real life.

I'd be much more interested in seeing in change in real life before some silly app store.

Maybe it's the number of users. If the iPhone was the phone you can't watch Netflix with (or any similar service), maybe a lot of people would buy an Android device.

They have a specific section in the rules for "Reader" apps like Netflix and Spotify. It's not unclear, it's been there since 2018.

How about Gmail or Yahoo! Mail?

Is there anything none free about either?

You can buy a subscription to remove ads in the latter and add storage in the former.

Yahoo mail has a 99 cent in app purchase according to the page in the App Store.

The Gmail app is not exclusive to the Gmail email service. You can use it to access other email services. Google Photo and Google Drive which are tied to only Google services offer in-app purchase of additional storage.

How is "reading my email from the hey server" different from "reading a video from the netflix server"?

Neither app functions without a separate, non apple subscription. The main criticism of Hey, from apples perspective, is that the app doesnt just work when you download it, but the same applies to netflix.

I personally think Hey could get around it by adding some other kind of feature to the app, like a way to read their blog. When it opens on IOS you have a "sign in" or "continue with the free version" and the free version aggregates basecamp marketing copies, as long as that free version isnt just a webview, but some enhanced native experience.

Can they also advertise the cost of their service, through the applepay experience, as "x+30% apple tax"?

With how much of their app is server side (nearly all of it, minus the translation from HTML to native,) I wonder how much they can get away with, without updating the client.

The other interesting thing about this dynamic is, Apple shipped Leopard with Ruby on Rails, which Basecamp created. So in the past, Apple took Basecamp's open source code to make OSX more valuable, but now when Basecamp wants to benefits its users, at no real cost to Apple, Apple says "not without paying us our cut." Maybe not morally wrong, but at least stinks of bad karma.

Read the full statement that Apple gave to Hey and the media [1]. If Hey made their email client a standard works with any email account then it'd be fine without in-app purchases. The specific Hey service could be purchased outside the App Store if they want to avoid giving Apple a cut.

[1] https://twitter.com/markgurman/status/1273719726196187136

I don't think Hey wants to be an email client that works with other providers. They should make their free feature something else entirely.

I do not understand how they don't qualify as a reader app

>How is "reading my email from the hey server" different from "reading a video from the netflix server"?

Because Netflix is the dominant one in the relationship, an iPad without Netflix is a broken iPad to the sort of people who buy iPads.

and email service without an iOS app is a broken email service so Apple intends to take advantage of that.

Again, the rules are clear, readers are a specific exemption. I would say that Microsoft Office stands out in tht list as the only thing delivery functionality not content - but I don't know the details of that app.

What about Fastmail? (https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/fastmail-email-calendar/id9313...)

I would say that example breaks the rules, I don't know how popular it is - we need to be realistic about how often an App store with millions of apps is going to miss something.

Add every single traditional bank to the list. If you don't have an existing contract with a bank you can download their app but you won't get past the login screen.

These are all exempted app categories. Email is not:

> “You download the app and it doesn’t work, that’s not what we want on the store,” says Schiller. This, he says, is why Apple requires in-app purchases to offer the same purchasing functionality as they would have elsewhere.

To be clear, this is against the App Store rules for most apps. The exceptions here are apps that are viewed as ‘readers’ that only display external content of certain types like music, books and movies — and apps that only offer bulk pricing options that are paid for by institutions or corporations rather than the end user.

Schiller is clear on our call that Hey does not fit these rules.

“We didn’t extend these exceptions to all software,” he notes about the ‘reader’ type apps — examples of which include Netflix. “Email is not and has never been an exception included in this rule.”

It seems that most of the above either offer some features for free or offer in-app purchases:

* Spotify offers free tier

* Kindle doesn't require buying books, technically you can use it to read documents that you send to your free account

* Netflix and Youtube allow to subscribe and pay via app-store

I'm not sure about the rest, but it seems that even Netflix and Amazon follow the rules.

Netflix doesn’t allow in app purchases anymore.

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/25097

iTunes billing for Netflix is not available to new or rejoining Netflix customers.

If you are attempting to create an account on an iOS mobile device, you can sign up on Netflix.com using a mobile browser and will be prompted to provide an alternate method of payment.

Neither does Youtube Live.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/13/21136730/youtube-tv-endin...

This is yet another sure sign that the playing field is not level, and that big companies are treated differently

But that's true of literally any business - e.g. if I go to Warner and ask them to license some music for my game, I'm going to get ignored. If EA want to license music for a game, they'll be getting lavish dinners and a selection of fine wines along with a menu of the new bands Warner want to pimp.

By itself, this argument makes sense. But the problem is how wildly unevenly it is applied. If you're "big enough" you get a pass.

Also, they got their first version through without any issues or a peep about this rule. And only when they needed to push a codefix is when they got held up.

If you're going to have rules, they MUST be applied evenly.

>But the problem is how wildly unevenly it is applied. If you're "big enough" you get a pass.

>If you're going to have rules, they MUST be applied evenly.

It's also possible that it is being applied evenly, it's just that the big guys negotiated private exemptions.

> It's also possible that it is being applied evenly, it's just that the big guys negotiated private exemptions.

... which means it's not being applied evenly.

How do you "get a pass if you're big enough"? If you're trying to use Netflix or Spotify as an example of big companies getting a pass then it'd have to only apply to them. But it doesn't.

Smaller subscription video or music apps could use the same section in the App Review Guidelines for "Reader" apps to have an app without in-app purchases that you buy outside the App Store.

This doesn't mean the Guidelines are foolproof and always consistently applied.

If you're just trying to read the Guidelines as legalese then it seems to me like there's some serious ambiguity with what exactly the "Reader" section allows.

It seems like Basecamp gets a pass based on the "access to professional databases" exemption. But at what point does a service that caters to consumers AND businesses cross over that line?

The App Store Review Guidelines have been a nightmare to parse through and the Review process an inconsistent mess for many years now. IAP really took it to a whole new level.

In what bizarro world is an email reader not allowed to use rules that apply to "reader apps"? Especially when things like video and music services, that involve no reading, can.

> problem is how wildly unevenly it is applied

This is one of my biggest frustrations with App Review.

It's easy to convince clients to budget for a few days exploratory work that might be rejected, but they're less inclined to do so with the possibility of an approval not being permanent, and then having to sink a lot more money into reworking that functionality at an indeterminate point in the future.

Sometimes you get stung because you're genuinely trying to slip something through that breaks the rules, but other times you get a reviewer with an axe to grind. One app I worked on was in the store for 18 months before they took issue with the way we'd implemented subscriptions. They were also not happy that there were links to Amazon, which if you clicked around for a bit, would take you to Prime Video or Amazon App Store.

One time, we had an update rejected for having the word "Android" in the app.

While technically mentioning "other mobile platforms" is prohibited in the review guidelines, in this case it was in user-submitted content that you could only find through search.

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#2.3...

That's fine, let me install software without going to the App store.

Here you go;

https://developer.apple.com/programs/enroll/

The developer agreement states that you're only allowed to sideload apps that you're responsible for developing yourself. Maybe if it's open source you could make an argument for that being allowed, but it's not a general purpose install path for consumers.

Technically true.

> “Application” means one or more software programs (including extensions, media, and Libraries that are enclosed in a single software bundle) developed by You in compliance with the Documentation and the Program Requirements, for distribution under Your own trademark or brand, and for specific use with an Apple-branded product running iOS, watchOS, tvOS, or macOS, as applicable, including bug fixes, updates, upgrades, modifications, enhancements, supplements to, revisions, new releases and new versions of such software programs.

> “Provisioning Profiles” means the files (including applicable entitlements or other identifiers) that are provided by Apple for use by You in connection with Your Application development and testing, and limited distribution of Your Applications for use on Registered Devices and/or on Authorized Test Units.

However in practice, for example, I use the Apple Developer Program with Cydia Impactor to build and install apps like Spike and xDrip on my kids iPhones (they are both T1D). It's basically point and click. [1]

[1] - https://spike-app.com/install-spike-using-cydia-impactor/

If one is able to install software without going into the App Store, then one is also liable to be socially engineered into installing software from outside the App Store.

No thanks. Keep iPhones in their walled gardens where they are safe. Androids exist for experimentation.

This IAP policy has nothing to do with security though.

And the many stores we can trust are more important than hypothetical abusers. Hypothetical abusers can be addressed in other ways, for instance Microsoft shuts down malicious servers and entities using lawyers and law enforcement.

Law enforcement will do a lot of good if the author isn’t in the US....

There is. By only allowing purchases by in app purchases, Apple can force the app developers to be fair in their return/refund processes. There are tons of scummy companies and developers want to take money from the customer and not return it if the customer is unhappy or even when they are exercising their legal rights and hope the customers to not bother for their 1 to 5$ purchase.

Believe me, the rules do make sense.

> No thanks. Keep iPhones in their walled gardens where they are safe. Androids exist for experimentation.

That's fine too, don't strong arm me out of 30% while letting others get away with no paying that. Some people want a walled garden (you) and dont mind paying for it, others would like to install software of their choosing without letting Apple know what they install and by who.

If there’s an option to opt out of the walled garden, people will be fooled into taking it. There is no way to differentiate between you, who wants to install what they wish, and those people that believe it is really Apple cold calling them.

Apple is not a monopoly, so I feel their attitude here is fair.

Apple is based in a country that allows you to buy firearms in your local grocery store.

You've been able to do that for a while now. Without a paid developer account you can self-sign any app you want to run for 7 days. With a paid developer account you can install whatever private apps you want.

So I have to pay Apple more to write software and install it on my own device that Ive paid for and own fully?

That's the thing, the rules aren't clearly defined, and aren't universally equally enforced and thinking that they are is naive. I've had numerous apps launch without question, then in a subsequent update have gotten rejected for stipulations in the App Store guidelines that I honestly don't remember reading, only to appeal and have the appeal succeed and my update be approved. It is, and always has been, up to the reviewer you get as soon as you get passed the automated binary checks.

I have several apps on my phone that I subscribe to or utilize services with payments outside of the Apple ecosystem.

A quick list (surely more): Ring, car insurance, Amazon, Chewy, Mercari, eBay, Zoho apps, Intercom, Nest, various credit cards, Spotify, Netflix, YouTubeTV, Meetup, 1Password, Griddy, Dropbox, credit monitoring, grocery ordering, etc

If anyone, they should be the one to do it. Basecamp/37Signals is established and has enough money to fight the fight without being included in the bickering like it would happen if Google or Amazon did it.

Not to say anything is coming from this, but at least they do have enough money to make buzz.

Then they should enforce this policy across the board. There are many examples of other apps doing what Hey is doing, without this charade.

Yet this is a very important problem, apple blocking people from having other app stores, and taking a large 30% cut of the revenue. Showing real harm convinces some people who only see theoretical problems.

This is a disingenuous response.

There are countless examples of other applications that have done exactly what Hey is doing without being banned. This is not clearly against the rules. To the extent that it is against the rules, Apple has deliberately phrased them in vague ways to let them change the meaning later. It is the exact opposite of “very clear”; it is abusive. Even Apple fans like Gruber agree.

Explain Spotify and Netflix?

The Hey app copies Netflix almost exactly, even in the language used for the subscription? How is that very clear for a rule?

I don't know about Netflix but you can use the Spotify app for free, right? Now from what I understand, Apple says that you can't do anything with the "Hey" app until you get a subscription[1]. Which is then different from the Spotify app.

[1] "The Hey Email app is marketed as an email app on the App Store, but when users download your app, it does not work," Apple said in a letter to Basecamp CEO Jason Fried on Thursday. "Users cannot use the app to access email or perform any useful function until after they go to the Basecamp website for Hey Email and purchase a license to use the Hey Email app."

You can’t do anything with Netflix without paying.

Other than a short free trial. Like hey has.

But Netflix offers in app purchases.

No it doesn’t.

https://www.macrumors.com/2018/12/28/netflix-no-more-itunes-...

Edit: I usually don’t comment on downvotes but what the hell?

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/25097

iTunes billing for Netflix is not available to new or rejoining Netflix customers.

If you are attempting to create an account on an iOS mobile device, you can sign up on Netflix.com using a mobile browser and will be prompted to provide an alternate method of payment.

https://imgur.com/a/t6AqwEx

That's what the App Store shows me...

That's presumably to support users who have existing subscriptions. GP showed that they do not allow people to pay for new subscriptions.

https://help.netflix.com/en/node/25097

iTunes billing for Netflix is not available to new or rejoining Netflix customers.

If you are attempting to create an account on an iOS mobile device, you can sign up on Netflix.com using a mobile browser and will be prompted to provide an alternate method of payment.

You can't even make an account for Netflix inside the application.

Section 3.1.3a[1] of the App store review guidelines. There is an explicit distinction drawn between free apps that allow you to access purchased content.

[1]https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#rea...

They seem to fall under the “reader app” exception that I understand as basically consumption of licensed works such as movies, songs, books.

My guess is that those categories just don’t have the margins to support a 30% cut without charging more then other platforms. An email service, dating all or games are basically arbitrary prices where every sale is making some money for the company. The store cut is annoying, but basically it’s still revenue.

Another problem with this PR campaign is that it really doesn't give Apple an easy way to back down even if they wanted to.

I believe Apple specifically called this out in the past. Something about running to the press won’t help your case.

The rules on the store in this area have changed interpretations without notice. It not being a new rule but becoming far more strict all of a sudden is a big part of the issue.

Also, going to the press works. DHH is taking one for the team by fighting this.

I think it’s pretty shitty to characterize this as them picking a fight. They’re getting totally shut down.

To describe the App Store rules as pretty clear is just beyond. Come on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com