4 ms·

DHH is very good at marketing and the theatrics are part of their roll-out strategy. It's also coordinated with this story [1]. The screenshot he posted from Ap

DHH is very good at marketing and the theatrics are part of their roll-out strategy. It's also coordinated with this story [1]. The screenshot he posted from Apple actually undermines the whole thread because it makes it clear why it was rejected. If you download their app it just takes you to a login screen with no ability to do anything else in the app. Apple has a section in their developer guidelines for these kinds of "Reader" apps, but there are only specific categories of apps that fall under it [2]: >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 https://www.protocol.com/hey-email-app-store-rejection [2] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/

pier25 6y ago
These terms are very vague. Email could fall under "cloud storage", no? Also, how come the Basecamp app has been allowed to operate for 7 years and is totally useless without a Basecamp user?
- outworlder 6y ago
  If the basecamp app has a link you can click that says "go to this website to pay for basecamp", it's not allowed. 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.
  - pier25 6y ago
    Right, but AFAIK HEY doesn't do that. At least that's what DHH has said in his tweets.
evv 6y ago
Thank you for clarifying the exact rule Hey broke. The easiest way to get around it is to provide an in-app purchase option for Apple users, and charge a higher price. 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.
- michaelbuckbee 6y ago
  But why "Hey" and not Slack or any of the other thousands of SAAS that have a mobile iOS client completely separate from billing.
- gruez 6y ago
  >The easiest way to get around it is to provide an in-app purchase option for Apple users, and charge a higher price. 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"
- dmitriid 6y ago
  15/mo comes down to 10/mo after the 30% that Apple takes. So, I really doubt they would "clearly make more money".
  - evv 6y ago
    It is not uncommon to have a different price for monthly vs yearly billing. IAP customers will pay more, but they can afford that anyways, and the bright ones will subscribe online. 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)
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      That's not enough of a difference to justify paying 30% to Apple. Additionally, "IAP customers will pay more" is actually in clear breach of App Store policy: you cannot price differentiate iOS purchases.

pier25 6y ago

These terms are very vague. Email could fall under "cloud storage", no? Also, how come the Basecamp app has been allowed to operate for 7 years and is totally useless without a Basecamp user?

outworlder 6y ago
If the basecamp app has a link you can click that says "go to this website to pay for basecamp", it's not allowed. 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.
- pier25 6y ago
  Right, but AFAIK HEY doesn't do that. At least that's what DHH has said in his tweets.

evv 6y ago

Thank you for clarifying the exact rule Hey broke. The easiest way to get around it is to provide an in-app purchase option for Apple users, and charge a higher price. 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.

michaelbuckbee 6y ago
But why "Hey" and not Slack or any of the other thousands of SAAS that have a mobile iOS client completely separate from billing.
gruez 6y ago
>The easiest way to get around it is to provide an in-app purchase option for Apple users, and charge a higher price. 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"
dmitriid 6y ago
15/mo comes down to 10/mo after the 30% that Apple takes. So, I really doubt they would "clearly make more money".
- evv 6y ago
  It is not uncommon to have a different price for monthly vs yearly billing. IAP customers will pay more, but they can afford that anyways, and the bright ones will subscribe online. 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)
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    That's not enough of a difference to justify paying 30% to Apple. Additionally, "IAP customers will pay more" is actually in clear breach of App Store policy: you cannot price differentiate iOS purchases.