14 ms·
Apple Threatens to Remove App 'Hey' from App Store over No In-App Subscriptions
- syshum 6y ago> "There is never in a million years a way that I am paying Apple a third of our revenues," Heinemeier Hansson told Protocol. That is obscene, and it's criminal, and I will spend every dollar that we have or ever make to burn this down until we get to somewhere better." Hmm this makes me want to sign up for this service even though I really have no need for it. More companies need to stand up to both Apple and Googles obscene store policies and fees
- tw04 6y ago> Apple said that sign-in only apps are allowed for business services, but not consumer products. So... Netflix is now a business app and not a consumer app..? Whaaaaaat?
- black_puppydog 6y agoYou don't spend your office hours on netflix and your evenings in your email client?!
- juandazapata 6y agoTell me about Spotify!
- cavisne 6y agoApparently the distinction is that Netflix is a "Reader" app, whatever that means.
- threeseed 6y agoIt means that the value does not lie solely in the app itself. Apple also doesn't charge for Uber, Ticketek, Deliveroo, Grubhub etc.
- syshum 6y agoSeems to me then it would apply to this app as well, as the value of the app is the Email Client and their Workflows which are server side The email client is just a interface for the server product just like Netflix, Uber or any of the others
- threeseed 6y agoYou're completely dismissing the value of end user experience. Which is kind of odd given that BaseCamp's main point of differentiation is the experience. It's akin to saying all cars are the same because they have 4 wheels and an engine.
- ummonk 6y agoI would argue the distinction there would be that you're subscribing to a general web service rather than a specific app, and that the app is just one of the ways to access the service. But that doesn't really explain what is going on here, since the same should apply to Hey.
- sureshv 6y agoApple (via the app store) has never charged for physical goods and services only virtual (bits) - e.g. ebooks, game coins, etc. Uber, Deliveroo, and Grubhub are not delivering virtual goods.
- darksaints 6y agoThe difference is one of power. Netflix could be make or break for apple customers. Hey is not.
- iphone_elegance 6y agoProbably legal ramifications as well due to Apple competing with netflix
- blickentwapft 6y agoPrevious: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23542937 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23542937
- pdq 6y agoSlightly off topic. What is their need for an email app, which just works with their new domain? Is this remarkably better than the iOS Mail app?
- aloukissas 6y agoIt's not an email app (only). It's an email service (to replace e.g. Gmail).
- geerlingguy 6y agoExcept this email service offers no IMAP, POP3, or other standards support so you can’t read or send Hey.com email without doing so through their client app.
- Daegalus 6y agothat's the whole point of Hey, they want to fundamentally alter how email works. adding all those would be just limiting what the point of it is.
- dingaling 6y agoIt's a clever UX, with interesting features in the business logic. But at the data layer none of it prohibits IMAP integration; simply presenting IMAP folder emulation for the emails and attachments would suffice for export or off-platform access. The fact that they aren't willing to do so is suspicious.
- Shank 6y agoYou could always simply...not use the service, and since email is distributed, literally nothing bad happens if you choose not to.
- raiyu 6y agoIt is augmented email - there are a lot of features they wrote that break the standard protocol so you would lose a ton of benefit without the app. https://hey.com/features/ https://hey.com/features/ Likewise because of that you don't get IMAP credentials so you couldn't even use a different email app to add your hey.com email address to it.
- simonhamp 6y agoI genuinely love that DHH still has the guts to make a stand like this even though he mostly loves on Apple products and has even been given pre-release goodies to try out directly from Apple. This is how you don’t become a sell-out! Don’t lower your standards just because someone gives you pretty things. Great example for all of us
- actuator 6y agoUmm... pretty sure he isn't lowering his standards because there is his money at stake here. If he had not been affected by this monetarily he most probably would have kept quiet like most humans to keep the good relations.
- simonhamp 6y agoThat’s what I’m saying. My comment was totally un-sarcastic and genuine: DHH has not lowered his standards; he is making a stand. Great lesson/example for the rest of us.
- copp 6y agoExcept that he testified before the congress on this of monopoly way before this.
- actuator 6y agoHis app Basecamp has been on the App Store way before he testified.
- buboard 6y agoSee, the problem is you made an app for it. why? doesnt ios have a mail app ? why would you want to lock yourself inside an app store anyway
- surround 6y agoNotifications.
- sam_lowry_ 6y agoWho uses notifications anyway?
- copp 6y agoAre you serious though ?
- sam_lowry_ 6y agoYes. I do not want apps to be proactive. If I need to check mail, I will do it. If I need to check it regularly, I'll set up a calendar event (OK, once in a while I need notifications), but these should be notifications I personally configure.
- surround 6y agoMail app.
- hakcermani 6y agoMaybe true that a lot of people turn off banners and sounds, but even a badge to show you have x unread messages needs the notifications. Else u have to open the app to check ..
- dbbk 6y agoYou can’t use the iOS Mail app, there’s no POP/IMAP support. You have to use their proprietary app.
- etaioinshrdlu 6y agoMaybe they could add the option to buy within the app, but charge the user the 30% markup too. And let the user know they can purchase outside the app for a discount. Kind of like paying cash instead of card at a restaurant. Edit: Interesting replies. But selling physical goods is an exception to the Apple tax. Maybe they can sell you a magic coin for $1 and ship it to you and that magic coin also coincidentally authorizes you to use the app...
- AlexandrB 6y agoAFAIK this is specifically disallowed in the Apple's TOS and will get your app banned. Edit: Oops, my recollection is almost 10 years out of date[1]. [1] https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/09/apple_backs_down_on_in_app_purchasing_rules_allows_lower_prices_for_out_of_app_purchases https://appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/09/apple_backs_down_...
- ummonk 6y agoIt is true that now you can charge different prices on and off platform (and I believe Spotify was doing this at one point). But you still can't have your app link to or mention the option to do purchases outside the app.
- nkozyra 6y agoI believe this is technically prohibited by TOS (incidentally so is charging a service fee to use a credit card but most skirt by that with a "cash discount")
- wool_gather 6y agoIn the US it's not (universally) illegal to add a service charge for credit cards. What is disallowed by federal law is having a "minimum purchase".
- nkozyra 6y agoSorry, not illegal, against the terms of service for the merchants utilizing Visa, MasterCard, Amex, etc.
- notRobot 6y agoIt's baffling to me. I can buy a USD1k+ device and still not be able to install on it the apps I want because the manufacturer doesn't want me to, and this is legal? Such horsecrap. People get annoyed when folks on the internet repeatedly bring up Libre/Free software and software freedoms, but just look at this shit. There's essentially no way for me to install an app on my iPhone if Apple doesn't want me to, even though I paid over $1000 for it.
- scarface74 6y agoYou paid $1000 knowing that you couldn’t install arbitrary software. You had a choice. You could have bought an Android like 85% of the world.
- actuator 6y agoSo, if Apple had 85% market share this would have been not fine then? At what marketshare do we decide it is fine for them to not do this? We can always ask the user to look for an alternative. Honestly, this whole think has stunk for a long time. iOS is a platform and it is dominant. It severely reeks of monopolistic behaviour when they use their leverage on one platform to gain advantage in a new one. Apple Music doesn't have to pay the 30% tax while also getting free product placement from Apple as compared to something like Spotify.
- scarface74 6y agoYes. Users have choices. You don’t have to have the nanny state to protect you from buying devices that don’t meet your needs. Apple Music doesn't have to pay the 30% tax while also getting free product placement from Apple as compared to something like Spotify. Spotify hasn’t allowed in app payments for years and don’t pay the 30% “tax” either. Are you also against every grocery store having store brands and “slotting fees”?
- actuator 6y agoWell, Spotify doesn't allow it to so that it doesn't have to pay the tax. Everyone wants to make the signup flow as easy as they can, do you think they would not want to increase their userbase. If we didn't have nanny state to protect us probably Microsoft's dominance would have went unchallenged and you won't have the plethora of different services that we see.
- elamje 6y agoAs much as DHH can be a bit angry on Twitter, I think he has the resources and fervor to go to bat and give Apple hell for this. Interestingly, while Apple is constantly touting its own privacy and anti ad features, this huge fee drives App developers to monetize through less scrupulous means to avoid paying the Apple tax. Generally, this mean apps that harvest data or show ads. I’m not sure what the correct % is in this case, but 30% and 15% is large for a mobile email client. For those that don’t know what Hey is, it’s a new email service launching with the @hey.com domain. There’s been a frenzy of invite swapping just to try to lock in the good 2, 3, and 4 character email prefixes. Also they are charging $999 a year for a 2 character email which is a good way to capture value.
- jaredtn 6y ago$99
- elamje 6y agoNo it’s certainly $999/yr. and $349 for a 3 character email. And $99 after that.
- jaredtn 6y agoInteresting, don't see that listed on https://hey.com/pricing/ https://hey.com/pricing/. Where are those policies listed?
- dangoor 6y agoIf you select a 2 or 3 character email name when signing up, it pitches the up charge to you. Not a big deal to select longer, and personally if I use it I’ll be using my own domain name.
- odensc 6y agoNot listed anywhere, but they do exist: https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272690224267575296 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272690224267575296
- scarface74 6y agoI usually come to Apple’s defense about their in app purchase requirements because you can subscribe outside of the app and still use it. There are at least a dozen apps that I have used that I have paid for outside of the store. But this goes too far. I have never heard mention of a carve out for “reader apps”. But I guess they meant apps that don’t allow you to create content. But that still feels arbitrary. It’s politically stupid to go after DHH. He has a large following and has already been before congress for exactly this.
- nojito 6y agoWhy should you get an exemption because you have a cult following? AppStore policies are extremely transparent and Apple has provided in-depth responses to him at every step of the way. They even went so far as apologize for approving it and giving him the false impression that they didn’t see him try to sneak past the rules. He has gotten way more favorable treatment than anyone else.
- scarface74 6y agoThere is nothing transparent about this. The rules have been for the longest that you can’t provide a link to a web page for out of store payments But you have never been forced to allow in app purchases. Speaking of favorable treatment, Amazon Prime Video gets special treatment. You can now purchase and rent video from Amazon directly in the app without Apple getting a cut. Heck, since both Apple and Amazon participate in Movies Anywhere, if you buy an app from a participating studio from Amazon within the app, the video counts as being purchased on iTunes (and Google Play Video, Vudu, etc.)
- nojito 6y agoYou didn’t respond to my statement that Apple has responded to him every step of the way. They even apologized when they didn’t realize he tried to sneak around the rules and approved the app. Please show an instance where Apple has done this for any other app.
- nkozyra 6y ago> It's not entirely clear why Apple is requiring Hey to provide an in-app subscription option when it allows Netflix and Spotify to decline to offer in-app purchase options while still having their apps in the App Store . I realize this was a rhetorical gesture, but it really highlights the power of leverage and how few can wield it against the Apples of the world.
- slantaclaus 6y agoThere are few who can. Thanks, European Union
- shoulderfake 6y agoEven more great news ahead of my move to Spain
- thu2111 6y agoHmm, Spain lost Google News entirely and all similar sites because they tried to wring money out of Google (sorry, make them pay a 'link tax') and Google walked away. Not sure Spain is a great example of your point.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- FirefoxIsSlow 6y agoWhy not make Apple users go through a web app?
- neximo64 6y agoIf the App store has terms we should all get them. Its a bit silly that you have to use leverage against Apple to get Netflix and Spotify their own rules. That is how Netflix and Spotify get a monopolistic advantage over their competitors too.
- barnaclejive 6y agoYep, "not entirely clear"? It is crystal clear - they get special treatment because they are so big/powerful. That is life.
- joegibbs 6y ago30% does seem a little bit high. What justification does Apple use for charging that much?
- simonhamp 6y agoBecause they have a monopoly on App Stores on iOS devices Edit: clarification of Apple’s monopolising
- threeseed 6y agoApple does not have a monopoly on phones. Far from it in fact. If you are referring to the App Store itself well no hardware device I can even think of, apart from a computer, allows competing stores.
- damnyou 6y agoAndroid?
- mynameisvlad 6y agoYeah, apart from installing APKs from the internet, you also have F-droid which is an entirely separate app repository, along with official stores from Samsung, Amazon and other OEMs.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- intopieces 6y agoIs Wal-Mart a monopoly too, since I’m not allowed to walk in and set up my own shelf of goods to sell? Serious question
- actuator 6y agoIf we are going down this line, I can also make some new arguments. Why do you think MS bundling IE was bad then, sure they had more marketshare than iOS but they were just improving the end user experience and now every platform comes with a browser by default.
- CPLX 6y agoI've been waiting for an HN thread on the actual product. Has anyone used it? Is it any good?
- stOneskull 6y ago100 dollars for an email address, that doesn't support IMAP or even POP. it doesn't seem to be worth it. for that money, you could register 3 domains and a year of migadu or similar.
- gfodor 6y agothe point of this app has completely sailed over your head. less space than a nomad.
- stOneskull 6y agothe point of the app is to make money. to lock people into using it. the features don't seem good to me but i am a bit tempted by the vanity aspect of the cool domain name.
- gfodor 6y agoi should have said 'value proposition' instead of 'point'. i'd have assumed that was obvious, but i guess not.
- sergeyfilippov 6y agoyou can see for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCeYTysLyGI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCeYTysLyGI
- granzymes 6y agoThis is great advertising by Hey.
- bibinou 6y agomedia plan going very smoothly.
- creddit 6y agoEasily biggest US antitrust issue in tech.
- FirefoxIsSlow 6y agoI'd much rather we let capitalism destroy Apple.
- alexashka 6y agoI predict they'll reach a backroom deal and that this abuse of power from Apple continues towards anyone who doesn't have the power to push back (unlike Spotify, Netflix, Uber, etc). On a sidenote - I can't help but wonder who'll pay 100$/year for an email client. This product to me will be the decider between users no longer willing to pay for anything unless they absolutely have to, and people being rational and understanding that if the benefit outweighs the cost, the price doesn't matter.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- echelon 6y agoIt is time to sue Apple. It is time for the DOJ to break them apart. They are a monopoly, and this is unjust. Plain and simple. If technology had evolved in an open fashion, this form of taxation would never have developed. The web could have been a completely open platform with a fully native experience. Instead Apple and Google shit on the web and force us to use their competing standards. Both of these companies are a hindrance. There should be one native experience and SDK. WASM has a chance to get us back to that enlightened path.
- SeanLuke 6y ago> They are a monopoly, and this is unjust. Over what market does Apple have a monopoly?
- echelon 6y agoThis is going to sound contrived, but they have a monopoly over the Apple App Store. You might argue that this isn't the definition of a monopoly, but the DOJ gets to decide that, not you. And there is a case to be made that this is, in fact, anti-competitive. Apple is forcing businesses that want to deploy paid software to pay their tax. You might say there are alternatives: Google. Google does the same thing and should also be punished. Before Apple started this extortion racket, there were ways to deploy paid software that could reach customers without having to go through a gatekeeper. Now there are very few ways to do so. Both Apple and Google have undercut the web. You can't write streaming video software that isn't native. You can't have any sort of first class experience. This is one of very few markets where there are no alternatives and the duopoly has actively done harm to the open alternative. Is this Apple's responsibility or fault? Absolutely. And I remind my legislators of this. If you're a developer that doesn't work for Apple or Google, you should feel a call to action to fight this asymmetric advantage they hold over us.
- FirefoxIsSlow 6y agoStop buying Apple products. Android can side load + web apps. This is a non issue as an Android user.
- chubs 6y agoSo apple's reasoning is that this exemption only applies to 'business' or 'reader' apps. Would Basecamp/Hey's solution be to remarket Hey as a business offering? I imagine most people who pay for a premium email are using it for work.
- DiabloD3 6y ago"I'm going to make one of those unpopular opinions, but alas, it must be said: It is far easier to just drop Apple support entirely." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23286883 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23286883
- paxys 6y agoGoing by that logic, it's far easier to just not build an app in the first place
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ilyas121 6y agoTwitter thread from founder for more info: https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272968382329942017 https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272968382329942017
- Axsuul 6y agoI can understand dhh's frustrations. Apple should really only deserve the 30% if they referred users to HEY via the App Store. Outside of that is just unfair and predatory. 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?
- gip 6y agoI see your point at the same time platforms also bring values, are expensive to build,... Success/failure, business models, pricing should be function of the products and the markets. So I'm not sure 'be entitled' or 'deserve' mean much. The reason it is shocking in this case is because Apple (and not WIX imo) has a clear monopoly and is probably abusing it. And that is illegal.
- toasterlovin 6y ago> 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. As you have described the Wix situation, it is not analogous. Apple only gets a share of revenue that they originate (user creates an account using in app purchase). Apple does not receive any revenue from users who sign up elsewhere and sign into their account in the app using their already extant account.
- troughway 6y agoConsidering 37signals are, I believe, Mac lovers, this doesn't bode well for either camp.
- amatai 6y agoHmm, so Netflix, Audible, Spotify are "reader apps" - as a user you only consume content and don't create it. What about Microsoft Outlook then? Microsoft charges for Exchange and Outlook is interface to Exchange to consume AND create content. Any way, I look at this, its inconsistent applied rules by Apple.
- imron 6y agoIt's completely inconsistent. For example, I have a Fastmail account that I pay $50/year for, and that needs to be paid via Fastmail's website. I also have the Fastmail email app on my iPhone that I don't need to pay anything for, and that I can use to sign in to my Fastmail account. I'm a big fan of Fastmail, and don't expect to use Hey, but it seems an almost identical use case and an identical market.
- weaksauce 6y agoit certainly looks like the fastmail app is pretty much identical to this. login screen to gate off any use of the app; quite inconsistent.
- gigel82 6y agoI'm pretty sure if you purchase your Microsoft 365 subscription in-app, Apple gets a huge chunk, which is pretty despicable... It looks like MS just swallows the extra cost given that Microsoft 365 Family costs the same $9.99 from the iOS app and directly from the website.
- toasterlovin 6y agoSoftware is 100% margins. How is it despicable that the party that originates the sale gets a share of the proceeds? Apple doesn’t get anything if Microsoft originates the sale on their own properties and the user simply enters their username and password. Getting paid for enabling the sale of goods and services is a completely normal thing in all aspects of business.
- quotha 6y agoThis is because the App Store is a monopsony https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22051915 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22051915
- benologist 6y agoI hope this uproar doesn't die down before WWDC because it's going to suck if Apple announces all the ARM Mac software must go through their app store.
- JohnTHaller 6y agoThey will once they can get away with it. They've been inching closer to this over the years with the MacOS GateKeeper settings and defaults.
- wool_gather 6y agoNah. [Quoting myself][0]: > They can't do this unless they are okay with never selling machines again to anyone who needs to write code. There's no feasible way for all programming tools to be distributed through MAS. IPython isn't going to suddenly go through the marathon of crap you need to get into the store. > If absolutely nothing else, native developers: you can't have more than one version of a MAS app installed. Nearly every iOS developer I know has at least two versions of Xcode at any given time. [0]:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22721310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22721310
- rydre 6y agoApple can't innovate anymore so they have this rent seeking behavior. I'm going to move away from the iPhone, and make my parents do the same. I hope you die a swift death of Yahoo, Apple, if you continue this behavior. Also what the hell is the United States government doing? Are they blind? Cmon' if someone important is reading this, you know its time to punish Apple for this. This should be unacceptable behavior and needs to be investigated. Spotify, Hey, Netflix and other smaller companies need to band up and take Apple to court over this. Apple is now a fat old rent seeker fart. This is a large indication that their shares are now overvalued.
- crazygringo 6y agoEDIT (previous comment deleted): I was making the case that Apple seemed to be in line with stated policy, but karl11 made the correct point that Fastmail is allowed, free, but without in-app signups. So regardless of policy, Apple clearly is being deeply inconsistent here and deserve to be called out. The only thing worse than bad policy is inconsistently bad policy. Thanks for the correction!
- karl11 6y agoThey aren’t being consistent. Basecamp is monetized identically and is in the App Store. So is Fastmail. So is Slack. Etc.
- simonhamp 6y agoHard disagree. DHH is standing up and using Basecamp’s weight to throw a damn big missile at Apple for the rest of us. In the process highlighting that other platforms are clearly getting special treatment
- lazyasciiart 6y ago> Apple's exception for business services is that they're generally contracted at an enterprise level anyways, where individual sign-up doesn't make sense. Enterprise Netflix and Spotify contracts?
- jasonjayr 6y agoDoes apple prohibit them from charging $baseprice + 30% for iOS subscriptions?
- LeoPanthera 6y agoNo, but it does prohibit you from telling the user that they are paying 30% extra, or telling them they can get a discount elsewhere.
- Shank 6y agoI believe this is a viable path forward. If Hey were to charge an in-app-purchase of basically any amount they would be okay. As long as they aren't telling users to go to hey.com and pay there instead, they'd be able to. Google does this for YouTube Premium right now, for example. The catch and the thing that Basecamp probably wants to avoid is that they would have to have a higher sticker price in iOS, and have to build support for it. The current price on their website is $99/yr, which would be an interesting iAP price too (so they'd probably want to go full monthly).
- AaronFriel 6y agoI think it's not that complicated, it's the Fight Club argument. Apple's carve-outs for certain companies are likely calibrated such that those companies have some revenue X that they would lose if they paid the tax, some legal cost Y to mount a challenge, and there's some likelihood of wining on the merits P. If Apple dropped the exception, the expected value of winning a lawsuit is P * X, so as long as P * X << Y, it's unlikely they'll be sued. For companies like Microsoft, Netflix, Spotify, and others, the amount they would lose in revenue to Apple's tax is likely much more than the cost of mounting a formidable legal challenge to Apple's practices. Apple would like to protect those practices, so its in their best interest to carve out exceptions - no matter how absurd - to companies that are large enough and could make a claim of anticompetitive practices. Apple's tax applies to me, but not for thee (richest companies in the world).
- huntermeyer 6y agoThat is obscene, and it's criminal, and I will spend every dollar that we have or ever make to burn this down until we get to somewhere better. - DHH Was this an intended reference to the Steve Jobs quote of a similar tune directed at Android?
- borland 6y agoI don't mind that Apple curates the app store. I find it a useful service for stopping malware and stuff like that. I DO mind that Apple is forcing companies to give them a 30% revenue cut even when the companies fully comply with all their rules. The line about "consumer" vs "business" apps is obvious horseshit, otherwise they best be kicking out all those other consumer apps like Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, etc
- aabbcc1241 6y agoYou have the choice to not pay to apple, and they have the choice to not publish your app. Apple App Store is proprietary, and majority of iOS user aren't going to jailbreak. This is ~50% of world currently. (It's is >50% of the market in my area, even worse) One thing we should try, is to make some great app, exclusively for open platforms, then encourage the folk to move forward.
- ericzawo 6y agoIf any company has a stranglehold on the media through its own PR, it's Apple. But still, I'm happy this story has simmered up — it's well-documented in the developer community, but I think the general public ought to know the hoops Apple makes developers jump through to offer their iOS apps to people. Now, if only Apple would acknowledge this developer treatment next week, at their Worldwide Developer Conference. But I'm not holding my breath.
- agakshat 6y agoAs someone who cherishes privacy (can’t use Android with continuous Google tracking) and abhors walled gardens (Apple), I think the market is ripe for a new player. Is it the natural course of things that every public company will eventually turn the screws on its customers to keep showing quarterly growth? If so, it is but natural to expect that they will be replaced by better competitors.
- aldarisbm 6y agoThe market is ripe for a new player. You're not the norm, youre the exception.
- agakshat 6y agoI agree that most people don’t care about privacy, but also consider that in the many years it will take for any competitor to emerge (even if they started today), the situation will have improved.
- ars 6y ago> can’t use Android with continuous Google tracking Google sure seems to offer a lot of privacy options to disable tracking. What is missing that you want?
- agakshat 6y agoYeah, but it ends up hurting usability to a large extent. Also, I’m at a point where it’s tough to take Google at it’s word about location history etc. With Apple I’m more comfortable letting them have my data, just because they have a better record with privacy, at least.
- m3kw9 6y agoWhen the gold standard for making money is inapp purchases and subscriptions, and Apple seeing almost all big apps circumventing that cash flow they gonna do something. A lot of companies doesn’t realize Apple did built a software and hardware platform with audiences that pay. They use the platform and cry foul when Apple wants a cut.
- harpratap 6y agoYou are already paying your dues to Apple's platform for $100/year.
- dannyw 6y agoYeah. How about Apple charge for app store review and distribution? $0.02 per GB transferred through the App Store, and/or $0.02 per MAU per month. Exemptions for personal, non-monetised projects. This way, they get to collect on advertising companies like Facebook too.
- evolve2k 6y ago> Apple allows these kinds of client apps -- where you can't sign up, only sign in -- for business services but not consumer products. Wondering out loud, what if they changed their home page copy to “business email”.. “down to business email” etc even if it didn’t work it could garner a new round of press and publicity.
- m463 6y agoThis is the monopsony side of the app store equation. "In the microeconomic theory of monopsony, a single entity is assumed to have market power over sellers as the only purchaser of a good or service, much in the same manner that a monopolist can influence the price for its buyers in a monopoly, in which only one seller faces many buyers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony
- wyxuan 6y agoEhh not really. Technically speaking Apple isn’t buying anything, the users are. Maybe if Apple was buying in app subscriptions on behalf of everyone, it would be a monopsony, but it isn’t the case here
- jasonhansel 6y agoHere's a suggestion, if they really want to stand their ground: provide a version of the app for jailbroken devices.
- nashashmi 6y agoCan the app developer sell the app instead, for a dollar? And refund the dollar to the person upon sign in? I think that's a viable workaround.
- tekcyb-org 6y agoNot sure why everyone is so surprised. This goes hand in hand with apples goals in creating a seamless ecosystem for the customer. It's part of their brand, mission and identity to have this tight/strict policy. It would actually hurt their brand if they derailed from this. Apple is an end to end ecosystem. It has a straight line vision. I think they would be wrong to not do this. And this is coming from a privacy / open source geek. I run my own mail servers.