The HEY discussion has revolved around money, but this is not about money
hey.com
hey.com
When someone signs up for your product in the App Store, they aren’t technically your customer anymore - they are essentially Apple’s customer. They pay Apple, and Apple then pays you. So that customer you’ve spent years of time, treasure, and reputation earning, is handed over to Apple. And you have to pay Apple 30% for the privilege of doing so!
Very true. I think people tend to associate in-app purchases with Apple unless they're very sharp or very motivated to do otherwise.
Does anyone think Apple will address this in any form at WWDC next week?
[...] at Basecamp we help people for all sorts of reasons. We apply credit to accounts for all sorts of reasons. We provide hardship exceptions for all sorts of reasons. We discount our software for teachers. We provide free versions for first responders. We extend trials for those who need more time. We extend payment terms occasionally for those who can’t make ends meet this month. We make exceptions because people are exceptional. We take enormous pride in helping people out. And we’re damn good at it.
If we had to push our customers through Apple’s system, we couldn’t do any of that. Apple’s rules prevent us from servicing our customers, yet Apple gives us no choice but to submit to those onerous rules or not be represented on their platform. [...]
This reflects my experience as well. If I can help customers with their billing issues, it makes my company look really good – we get an opportunity to provide exceptional customer service. If their subscriptions are managed via Apple, we don't really get that opportunity; instead, we're just one of many apps that can't make exceptions.
Apple is far less likely than the company that builds the app to care about the sorts of individual customer reasons for needing a trial extended, account credited, etc, that are mentioned in the article.
Yes, lots of companies are bad at customer service. But some are really good! (you can tell by how their customers gush about them.) And with forced in-app purchases, the good ones don't get the opportunity to do their best work.
Apple's subscription restriction is optimized to prevent the bad actors in the ecosystem from abusing Apple customers. And unfortunately there are a lot more bad actors in the marketplaces than there are good actors who are trying to do the right thing.
If it was a perfect system then yes it would be nice for Apple to allow third parties to have their own subscription systems. But I'd rather be locked into Apple subscriptions than deal with the nefarious and poorly implemented custom subscription systems of the average shovelware app developer.
If an app has a poor subscription system, I just wouldn’t subscribe. That would eventually push them towards Apple or towards a better system.
As consumers we are hurt because we don’t get the experience of any subscription services that are better than Apples because the decision is made for us.
But something seems wrong about classifying all developers as equally untrustworthy and forcing every customer through the same IAP experience.
As a customer, I don't believe I'm helped or protected by subscribing to YouTube for a 30% to 40% premium versus what it costs through the YouTube website, just so that I have the ability to cancel my subscription through Apple.
There's a (good) theme in this: control. They don't want Apple to control the relationship between Hey and its customers. Which is super cool. I like it. It's bold, it's correct, it's an easy position to hold.
Which is why it's weird they don't have domain support. Why should I cede control of the relationship between my contacts and myself to them? I get the feeling domain support will be part of the coming business plan mentioned in the welcome emails when you sign up. So you can spend the $99/year, or more with the "premium" names, and still depend on Hey to control that relationship. I was soured on it a bit by not being able to get kye@. That's my name. I don't have almost $400/year to claim it. Someone more fortunate will be able to. I already have a domain for the name that's easy to remember.
Everyone loved Gmail when it came out. Having a Gmail address was a point of pride for at least as long as invites were scarce. Who thinks that now? Controlling the domain is a hedge against the risk that Hey will go down the same road. It should have been there at launch, and it should be available on all plans. I would have signed up the moment I got in and saw how well everything is put together.
I like it a lot, but I can't possibly use it if I can't point it at a domain I control at the plan level that's right for my needs.
What's next? Are they going to want a 30% cut of any transactions I make through the Vanguard or E-Trade apps?
If you build on a platform, be prepared to get fucked over anytime, period. Otherwise build on a protocol, that is open, and will prevail.
Otherwise, it's about trying to decide what risks are reasonable, and doing what little you can to influence each platform's behavior toward you, which is what Basecamp is doing.
I think that's what this comes down to - you're paying Apple the premium as a developer to access Apple's customers.
They aren't your customers. They are Apples. So this argument calls this out but is asking them to change that? Seems like they are asking Apple to completely change their business model.
Edit to add from the TC interview with Schiller, he even gives a way to get around the app store process, which I have used in a previous app that we did on iOS:
"One way that Hey could have gone, Schiller says, 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"