8 ms·

Apple Is Trying to Shut Down Hey

145 points by dsr12 6y ago

xenospn 6y ago
Great PR move by Hey. Not sure there's much more to it, tho. He's basically saying "yeah, we broke the rules - but they're doing it too!", just like a driver caught speeding tries to point out that red Corvette that the cops didn't pull over 5 minutes ago.
- socalnate1 6y ago
  This is not even a remotely correct reading of what happened here.
- tpetry 6y ago
  They did not break any rules. Its perfectly valid to use an account with a subscription not created in an app (and no ability to do it).
  - zaroth 6y ago
    Apple does have a rule about providing an in-app purchase option, although I believe they don’t require that be the only way to make the purchase. I think Apple tries to distinguish between apps that provide access to content which you subscribe to (so-called “Reader” apps) versus apps where the service is the app itself. If the service is the app itself, then they want all apps to be sold directly through the App Store. If the app is a Reader for a content subscription, then they allow selling the content subscription separately. I’m not sure it’s evenly enforced, but I think that’s their intent and stated policy which they are trying to enforce here.
- jonny_eh 6y ago
  What rule did they break?
  - Traster 6y ago
    I mean, if you read the full tweet thread, it says they broke rule 3.1.1, and 3.1.3(b) > Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multiplatform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. Basically Apple says if you're offering a multi-platform service - which this e-mail client clearly is - then you must provide the option to buy the service in the App using apple's in-app purchase system.
    - t-writescode 6y ago
      Why does my Kindle app work, then? Last I checked, I couldn't buy new Kindle books on my iPhone at all
      - topicseed 6y ago
        Because it's a Reader and in the same ToS, there's a caveat for "Readers".
        brandon272 6y ago
        There’s myriad examples of non-reader subscription based apps where Apple allows the app in the App Store. Basecamp’s actual “Basecamp” app being one example!
- benologist 6y ago
  Apple are bullies. By submitting your app you accept to be bullied. By using their apps you accept to be bullied. By buying their hardware you accept to be bullied. The rule they are breaking is not accepting their bullying. That's why parents had to sue them to get refunds on fraudulent in-app purchases as children were scammed and manipulated into tapping buy buttons again and again. That's why Macbook Pro owners had to sue them again and again to address product defects. That's why they're being investigated in both the EU and US for abusing their platforms. They even officially had a rule for iOS developers that threatened against talking to the press. If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps. https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer...
  - rhencke 6y ago
    I thought you were paraphrasing, at first. I was surprised to find you were quoting it verbatim.
    - musicale 6y ago
      Probably worth reading the whole 2014 page in context, as well as the current (2020) version. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
  - musicale 6y ago
    > By buying their hardware you accept to be bullied YMMV on that - personally, I've gotten pretty decent support for my Apple hardware. For example, in one case, they completely replaced a laptop that had gone out of repair support with a new model that was supported. I don't like the butterfly keyboard, but they replaced it twice and gave me a third-revision model that has worked fine since. In addition to macOS, I use Linux (in a VM) and Windows (both VM and native) on my Apple hardware, and they all work fine.
    - benologist 6y ago
rgovostes 6y ago
Apple always says, "Bashing our app review process in the press doesn't work." It always works.
- copperx 6y ago
  If they go through the trouble of stating it, it bugs them, so it is probably very effective.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  Exactly. In most cases, it is the only thing that works. Unfortunately, most people don't have the reach to get their story out there and viral.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  It's going to work even more in the future as antitrust cases start piling up. The EU court could even use this instance as a demonstration of monopolistic gatekeeping.
jedieaston 6y ago
This isn't awesome for Apple, PR wise, as next week they are expected to announce the Mac moving to ARM. "Come on! Bring your apps! What do you mean you don't want to invest in porting? What do you mean you're scared of our App Store policies?"
- google234123 6y ago
  You should port your apps because you think it's in your financial interest. The fact that there's some drama with one random app breaking the rules shouldn't factor.
  - jjeaff 6y ago
    This isn't one app. Thousands of companies have been shaken down this way. It's just that they usually let the big guys slide. They probably underestimated Basecamp, thinking that they were small enough to bully.
  - kyawzazaw 6y ago
    It’s not just one app. Considering that it wants 15-30%, it really conflicts with the financial interests part.
    - google234123 6y ago
      What store doesn't take 15-30%?
      - schwartzworld 6y ago
        what platform ONLY let's you install apps through it's official store?
        google234123 6y ago
        Can anyone upload a app to the nintendo store?
josuepeq 6y ago
It seems to me there’s a double standard for some apps; Apple’s logic here is ridiculous. I can’t sign up for “Microsoft 365 Home“ or “Personal” inside of Microsoft Word for iOS or any other Microsoft app, but Apple still approves them without this mandate. I think Basecamp is in the right here.
- Despegar 6y ago
  That's not the case. You can sign up for Office 365 through IAP. https://twitter.com/sandofsky/status/1273010912484446209 https://twitter.com/sandofsky/status/1273010912484446209
  - kyawzazaw 6y ago
    Seems like the Newton email app is not being enforced through the rule.
    - Despegar 6y ago
      It was for ProtonMail though. Inconsistency among app reviewers are going to be a reality forever because they're human. They just need to have processes for appealing it to someone higher up so mistakes can be corrected (which they do). https://twitter.com/Abjurato/status/1273151302361649159 https://twitter.com/Abjurato/status/1273151302361649159
      - cmsj 6y ago
        (in the case of Hey, Apple said it had reviewed the decision internally)
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  Apple knows that they have more to lose if they suddenly remove Microsoft Office or any long-standing apps that lots of people know about and rely on. With a new player however, there are not enough users on it to even make a dent in Apple's reputation - the masses don't even have a clue as to what "Hey" is and won't suddenly consider Android because Hey is not available on iOS. This behavior is nasty and regulation is more than welcome here, but makes sense from a business point of view.
t-writescode 6y ago
I'm not sure I believe the reasoning that the author describes - they're an email app on top of their email service. That's all that was blocked; but, I wonder if the problem here was marketing. Assuming Hey followed standard email service protocol, users of Hey could absolutely use the Apple Mail app to connect to their email servers, so it shouldn't be about that, unless they marketed too hard, or something. I probably can't use any POP server in the GMail app, for example. I suspect they marketed too hard and too loudly about how they're totally not email "and here, you can buy in" and that tipped someone in the review process off and then a review that doesn't hold up to greater scrutiny was made. The greater problem is probably the refusal to re-review it. All the decrying about "going against one of Apple's businesses" seems like punching at the air. Apple probably doesn't care whether people have an iCloud email address or not.
- nicwolff 6y ago
  > Assuming Hey followed standard email service protocol They didn't. https://hey.com/faqs/#can-i-check-my-hey-email-with-my-existing-email-app https://hey.com/faqs/#can-i-check-my-hey-email-with-my-exist...
  - t-writescode 6y ago
    Oh. That makes Apple's stance more clear, then. Do they reference paying for anything anywhere in the app? They might want to take a play out of Kindle's book here. edit: if they haven't already.
    - benhurmarcel 6y ago
      > Do they reference paying for anything anywhere in the app? No. That's the point.
    - mediaman 6y ago
      No, please refer to all the ink spilled on this already. They were very careful to avoid references to paying anything in the app anywhere, or linking to anywhere where payment could be made. This was always the rule previously. It's not just HEY: other developers are now reporting that Apple's grip is tightening and starting to enforce this change. You can no longer provide access to any service without submitting to Apple's tax, unless (1) you are a "reader" app or (2) you only sell to businesses (i.e., the user cannot pay for the app).
bdcravens 6y ago
I know that DHH has always been a big Apple fan. Between the Apple credit card drama and this, how long before he publicly moves to another platform? While I have no idea if it's a significant number, I've heard a few anecdotal accounts of how Rails was the cause for many to buy their first MacBook.
- topicseed 6y ago
  I totally agree with DHH, Jason, and Hey here. While I may understand why Apple would require them to use IaP if they allowed in-app payments, they aren't in this case. However, the pact of Basecamp's heads moving to Android and away from Apple's ecosystem would surely be insignificant. Even PR-wise, it's a fun storm, but it's still in a glass of water.
BonesJustice 6y ago
As a user, I am generally in favor of Apple requiring the option to purchase items and subscriptions through the App Store. I would never subscribe to, for example, HBO NOW if I thought I’d have to go through HBO (owned by AT&T) in order to unsubscribe. I want the guarantee of easy cancellation. I am also fine with Apple collecting a modest fee for providing that service. That fee should probably be somewhere in the 2-3% range. Demanding what amounts to a 30% “introducer fee” is beyond absurd. I also do not approve of how inconsistently Apple enforces their own rules.
- kyawzazaw 6y ago
  > I would never subscribe to, for example, HBO NOW if I thought I’d have to go through HBO (owned by AT&T) in order to unsubscribe. I want the guarantee of easy cancellation. Maybe it is just me but as long as I can cancel the subscription on a mobile website or a desktop website without talking or calling anyone, I really really don’t care. Also the fact that I rarely have to do these subscribing/unsubscribing.
- Despegar 6y ago
  >I am also fine with Apple collecting a modest fee for providing that service. That fee should probably be somewhere in the 2-3% range. Apple's cut isn't for payment processing, even if developers insist that's all they do. It's for access to their marketplace and their very large user base.
  - benhurmarcel 6y ago
    >It's for access to […] their very large user base Pretty ironic for a company that sells you that you're not the product being sold.
    - musicale 6y ago
      To me it seems more like paying for shelf space, and iTunes is probably a lot cheaper than what you used to pay for physical shelf space. However, physical games (and downloads) for the Switch (or other game systems) cost a lot more than 99 cent games for the iPhone and iPad. But Apple does sell paid search/advertising results.
SigmundA 6y ago
I am torn. I like the in app payment and subscription systems easy to use and manage and trustworthy, no run around if a later I want to cancel a subscription, good stuff for the consumer. I do think their 30% cut is excessive but they provide a lot a value with it, not sure what number would be acceptable to developers in order to just use it, part of me thinks they should just take no cut and make all their money by dominating phone sales. The real problem here is complicated rules that are inconsistently enforced, and changing their minds later, that really screws over developers.
- benhurmarcel 6y ago
  It would be trivial to solve by still requiring the IAP, but allowing developers to inform the user that another price is available on the web. You'd still get the convenience of subscribing through the app if you want it (and paying more for it), but you'd be aware of the alternative. After all, if Apple defends their policies as user protection, they shouldn't be opposed to more information being given.
randyrand 6y ago
The rule is that you need to provide a way to buy it in-app. NOTE: It doesn't have to be the same price. "One recent example is Spotify, whose music app was $9.99 per month if you subscribed on the web, but was $12.99 per month if you subscribed on iOS"
dr_dshiv 6y ago
Apple is a clear monopoly that does not provide consumer value. Monopolies are bad for free markets. It should be broken up. Meaning, they should be forced to allow non-apple markets on their hardware.
nozepas 6y ago
I'm not sure it's fair to say that 'Apple is trying to shut down hey' as it sounds like that same situation hasn't affected any other apps before. Apple is choosing to enforce their terms (which you can disagree with - i think charging 30% is way too much) and that is about it. A lot of other apps have faced the same situation before and only certain ones have managed to fall into the specific 'readers' exemption. I'm also a bit surprised that a team like the one I guess hey has, did not see this coming, as it's pretty clear in the apple store terms and anybody with some iOS and app store publishing experience would have been concerned about that from day 1.
bluesign 6y ago
How is it different than gmail?
pedrorijo91 6y ago
maybe it's time for ios developers to (temporary) remove their apps from the App Store as a protest? Taking 30% without providing alternatives to install apps seems totally unfair
EADGBE 6y ago
These Apple tactics are nothing new. Why is DHH acting so surprised?
achow 6y ago
Just curious, is there anything that can prevent developers to charge 30% more when in-app purchase is used for sign-up, with a nice little text around the 'Buy' button: You would get 30% discount if you use our website for purchase. Here the price includes Apple payment infrastructure cost. I'm sure there would not be anything in Apple's guideline documents about adding above kind of 'informative' content.
holigot 6y ago
So why does Fastmail work without any issues? Also a Mail-Service. Same situation as hey.com but allowed.

145 points by dsr12 6y ago

Great PR move by Hey. Not sure there's much more to it, tho. He's basically saying "yeah, we broke the rules - but they're doing it too!", just like a driver caught speeding tries to point out that red Corvette that the cops didn't pull over 5 minutes ago.

socalnate1 6y ago
This is not even a remotely correct reading of what happened here.
tpetry 6y ago
They did not break any rules. Its perfectly valid to use an account with a subscription not created in an app (and no ability to do it).
- zaroth 6y ago
  Apple does have a rule about providing an in-app purchase option, although I believe they don’t require that be the only way to make the purchase. I think Apple tries to distinguish between apps that provide access to content which you subscribe to (so-called “Reader” apps) versus apps where the service is the app itself. If the service is the app itself, then they want all apps to be sold directly through the App Store. If the app is a Reader for a content subscription, then they allow selling the content subscription separately. I’m not sure it’s evenly enforced, but I think that’s their intent and stated policy which they are trying to enforce here.
jonny_eh 6y ago
What rule did they break?
- Traster 6y ago
  I mean, if you read the full tweet thread, it says they broke rule 3.1.1, and 3.1.3(b) > Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multiplatform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. Basically Apple says if you're offering a multi-platform service - which this e-mail client clearly is - then you must provide the option to buy the service in the App using apple's in-app purchase system.
  - t-writescode 6y ago
    Why does my Kindle app work, then? Last I checked, I couldn't buy new Kindle books on my iPhone at all
    - topicseed 6y ago
      Because it's a Reader and in the same ToS, there's a caveat for "Readers".
      - brandon272 6y ago
        There’s myriad examples of non-reader subscription based apps where Apple allows the app in the App Store. Basecamp’s actual “Basecamp” app being one example!
benologist 6y ago
Apple are bullies. By submitting your app you accept to be bullied. By using their apps you accept to be bullied. By buying their hardware you accept to be bullied. The rule they are breaking is not accepting their bullying. That's why parents had to sue them to get refunds on fraudulent in-app purchases as children were scammed and manipulated into tapping buy buttons again and again. That's why Macbook Pro owners had to sue them again and again to address product defects. That's why they're being investigated in both the EU and US for abusing their platforms. They even officially had a rule for iOS developers that threatened against talking to the press. If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps. https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer...
- rhencke 6y ago
  I thought you were paraphrasing, at first. I was surprised to find you were quoting it verbatim.
  - musicale 6y ago
    Probably worth reading the whole 2014 page in context, as well as the current (2020) version. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
- musicale 6y ago
  > By buying their hardware you accept to be bullied YMMV on that - personally, I've gotten pretty decent support for my Apple hardware. For example, in one case, they completely replaced a laptop that had gone out of repair support with a new model that was supported. I don't like the butterfly keyboard, but they replaced it twice and gave me a third-revision model that has worked fine since. In addition to macOS, I use Linux (in a VM) and Windows (both VM and native) on my Apple hardware, and they all work fine.
  - benologist 6y ago

rgovostes 6y ago

Apple always says, "Bashing our app review process in the press doesn't work." It always works.

copperx 6y ago
If they go through the trouble of stating it, it bugs them, so it is probably very effective.
jjeaff 6y ago
Exactly. In most cases, it is the only thing that works. Unfortunately, most people don't have the reach to get their story out there and viral.
Apocryphon 6y ago
It's going to work even more in the future as antitrust cases start piling up. The EU court could even use this instance as a demonstration of monopolistic gatekeeping.

jedieaston 6y ago

This isn't awesome for Apple, PR wise, as next week they are expected to announce the Mac moving to ARM. "Come on! Bring your apps! What do you mean you don't want to invest in porting? What do you mean you're scared of our App Store policies?"

google234123 6y ago
You should port your apps because you think it's in your financial interest. The fact that there's some drama with one random app breaking the rules shouldn't factor.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  This isn't one app. Thousands of companies have been shaken down this way. It's just that they usually let the big guys slide. They probably underestimated Basecamp, thinking that they were small enough to bully.
- kyawzazaw 6y ago
  It’s not just one app. Considering that it wants 15-30%, it really conflicts with the financial interests part.
  - google234123 6y ago
    What store doesn't take 15-30%?
    - schwartzworld 6y ago
      what platform ONLY let's you install apps through it's official store?
      - google234123 6y ago
        Can anyone upload a app to the nintendo store?

josuepeq 6y ago

It seems to me there’s a double standard for some apps; Apple’s logic here is ridiculous. I can’t sign up for “Microsoft 365 Home“ or “Personal” inside of Microsoft Word for iOS or any other Microsoft app, but Apple still approves them without this mandate. I think Basecamp is in the right here.

Despegar 6y ago
That's not the case. You can sign up for Office 365 through IAP. https://twitter.com/sandofsky/status/1273010912484446209 https://twitter.com/sandofsky/status/1273010912484446209
- kyawzazaw 6y ago
  Seems like the Newton email app is not being enforced through the rule.
  - Despegar 6y ago
    It was for ProtonMail though. Inconsistency among app reviewers are going to be a reality forever because they're human. They just need to have processes for appealing it to someone higher up so mistakes can be corrected (which they do). https://twitter.com/Abjurato/status/1273151302361649159 https://twitter.com/Abjurato/status/1273151302361649159
    - cmsj 6y ago
      (in the case of Hey, Apple said it had reviewed the decision internally)
Nextgrid 6y ago
Apple knows that they have more to lose if they suddenly remove Microsoft Office or any long-standing apps that lots of people know about and rely on. With a new player however, there are not enough users on it to even make a dent in Apple's reputation - the masses don't even have a clue as to what "Hey" is and won't suddenly consider Android because Hey is not available on iOS. This behavior is nasty and regulation is more than welcome here, but makes sense from a business point of view.

t-writescode 6y ago

I'm not sure I believe the reasoning that the author describes - they're an email app on top of their email service. That's all that was blocked; but, I wonder if the problem here was marketing. Assuming Hey followed standard email service protocol, users of Hey could absolutely use the Apple Mail app to connect to their email servers, so it shouldn't be about that, unless they marketed too hard, or something. I probably can't use any POP server in the GMail app, for example. I suspect they marketed too hard and too loudly about how they're totally not email "and here, you can buy in" and that tipped someone in the review process off and then a review that doesn't hold up to greater scrutiny was made. The greater problem is probably the refusal to re-review it. All the decrying about "going against one of Apple's businesses" seems like punching at the air. Apple probably doesn't care whether people have an iCloud email address or not.

nicwolff 6y ago
> Assuming Hey followed standard email service protocol They didn't. https://hey.com/faqs/#can-i-check-my-hey-email-with-my-existing-email-app https://hey.com/faqs/#can-i-check-my-hey-email-with-my-exist...
- t-writescode 6y ago
  Oh. That makes Apple's stance more clear, then. Do they reference paying for anything anywhere in the app? They might want to take a play out of Kindle's book here. edit: if they haven't already.
  - benhurmarcel 6y ago
    > Do they reference paying for anything anywhere in the app? No. That's the point.
  - mediaman 6y ago
    No, please refer to all the ink spilled on this already. They were very careful to avoid references to paying anything in the app anywhere, or linking to anywhere where payment could be made. This was always the rule previously. It's not just HEY: other developers are now reporting that Apple's grip is tightening and starting to enforce this change. You can no longer provide access to any service without submitting to Apple's tax, unless (1) you are a "reader" app or (2) you only sell to businesses (i.e., the user cannot pay for the app).

bdcravens 6y ago

I know that DHH has always been a big Apple fan. Between the Apple credit card drama and this, how long before he publicly moves to another platform? While I have no idea if it's a significant number, I've heard a few anecdotal accounts of how Rails was the cause for many to buy their first MacBook.

topicseed 6y ago
I totally agree with DHH, Jason, and Hey here. While I may understand why Apple would require them to use IaP if they allowed in-app payments, they aren't in this case. However, the pact of Basecamp's heads moving to Android and away from Apple's ecosystem would surely be insignificant. Even PR-wise, it's a fun storm, but it's still in a glass of water.

BonesJustice 6y ago

As a user, I am generally in favor of Apple requiring the option to purchase items and subscriptions through the App Store. I would never subscribe to, for example, HBO NOW if I thought I’d have to go through HBO (owned by AT&T) in order to unsubscribe. I want the guarantee of easy cancellation. I am also fine with Apple collecting a modest fee for providing that service. That fee should probably be somewhere in the 2-3% range. Demanding what amounts to a 30% “introducer fee” is beyond absurd. I also do not approve of how inconsistently Apple enforces their own rules.

kyawzazaw 6y ago
> I would never subscribe to, for example, HBO NOW if I thought I’d have to go through HBO (owned by AT&T) in order to unsubscribe. I want the guarantee of easy cancellation. Maybe it is just me but as long as I can cancel the subscription on a mobile website or a desktop website without talking or calling anyone, I really really don’t care. Also the fact that I rarely have to do these subscribing/unsubscribing.
Despegar 6y ago
>I am also fine with Apple collecting a modest fee for providing that service. That fee should probably be somewhere in the 2-3% range. Apple's cut isn't for payment processing, even if developers insist that's all they do. It's for access to their marketplace and their very large user base.
- benhurmarcel 6y ago
  >It's for access to […] their very large user base Pretty ironic for a company that sells you that you're not the product being sold.
  - musicale 6y ago
    To me it seems more like paying for shelf space, and iTunes is probably a lot cheaper than what you used to pay for physical shelf space. However, physical games (and downloads) for the Switch (or other game systems) cost a lot more than 99 cent games for the iPhone and iPad. But Apple does sell paid search/advertising results.

SigmundA 6y ago

I am torn. I like the in app payment and subscription systems easy to use and manage and trustworthy, no run around if a later I want to cancel a subscription, good stuff for the consumer. I do think their 30% cut is excessive but they provide a lot a value with it, not sure what number would be acceptable to developers in order to just use it, part of me thinks they should just take no cut and make all their money by dominating phone sales. The real problem here is complicated rules that are inconsistently enforced, and changing their minds later, that really screws over developers.

benhurmarcel 6y ago
It would be trivial to solve by still requiring the IAP, but allowing developers to inform the user that another price is available on the web. You'd still get the convenience of subscribing through the app if you want it (and paying more for it), but you'd be aware of the alternative. After all, if Apple defends their policies as user protection, they shouldn't be opposed to more information being given.

randyrand 6y ago

The rule is that you need to provide a way to buy it in-app. NOTE: It doesn't have to be the same price. "One recent example is Spotify, whose music app was $9.99 per month if you subscribed on the web, but was $12.99 per month if you subscribed on iOS"

dr_dshiv 6y ago

Apple is a clear monopoly that does not provide consumer value. Monopolies are bad for free markets. It should be broken up. Meaning, they should be forced to allow non-apple markets on their hardware.

nozepas 6y ago

I'm not sure it's fair to say that 'Apple is trying to shut down hey' as it sounds like that same situation hasn't affected any other apps before. Apple is choosing to enforce their terms (which you can disagree with - i think charging 30% is way too much) and that is about it. A lot of other apps have faced the same situation before and only certain ones have managed to fall into the specific 'readers' exemption. I'm also a bit surprised that a team like the one I guess hey has, did not see this coming, as it's pretty clear in the apple store terms and anybody with some iOS and app store publishing experience would have been concerned about that from day 1.

bluesign 6y ago

How is it different than gmail?

pedrorijo91 6y ago

maybe it's time for ios developers to (temporary) remove their apps from the App Store as a protest? Taking 30% without providing alternatives to install apps seems totally unfair

EADGBE 6y ago

These Apple tactics are nothing new. Why is DHH acting so surprised?

achow 6y ago

Just curious, is there anything that can prevent developers to charge 30% more when in-app purchase is used for sign-up, with a nice little text around the 'Buy' button: You would get 30% discount if you use our website for purchase. Here the price includes Apple payment infrastructure cost. I'm sure there would not be anything in Apple's guideline documents about adding above kind of 'informative' content.

holigot 6y ago

So why does Fastmail work without any issues? Also a Mail-Service. Same situation as hey.com but allowed.