34 ms·

Apple gave me the Hey treatment back in 2014

384 points by firloop 6y ago

realtalk_sp 6y ago
The fact that Apple is scrubbing text communications and discussing certain sensitive things with developers only over the phone is supremely shady. Deleting old communications is a classic tactic employed by organizations that anticipate lawsuits and associated discovery. It's amazing that they've formulated a comprehensive set of internal business practices directed at sustaining this racket.
- cheez 6y ago
  their lawyers ain't cheap.
- giancarlostoro 6y ago
  Force Apple to communicate via email or other comms out of their control.
  - whycombagator 6y ago
    How are you going to force Apple to do that?
    - giancarlostoro 6y ago
      You telling them your preferred medium of communication would be one way. See a sibling comment for the result of that alone in some situations.
  - statictype 6y ago
    I had a long argument with Apple Support over their refusal to replace my shitty Macbook keyboard under their warranty program. Finally I asked them to give me their rejection in a formal email. Two days later the support person called back and said they made 'an exception' in my case and are happy to fix it under warranty.
    - verall 6y ago
      In this case it is because you need that rejection email in writing to go file a claim with your credit card and trigger your purchase protection. As soon as Apple (or whoever) thinks you will take this route, they are happy to limit their losses and replace it before you can file a claim that could result in chargeback.
      - _rs 6y ago
        Would credit card extended warranties and protection result in a charge back? I thought the credit card companies paid these out as benefits, and usually reserved for cards with annual fees.
        zaksoup 6y ago
        There's two routes you could go down - file a warranty claim on a higher-end card that provides extended warranties. Cards usually also allow you to request a chargeback against defective goods for which a merchant refuses to make you whole. In this case you could probably call up Amex or whatever and say "I bought a laptop that is defective within the warranty period and apple refuses to RMA it, here's the proof..." and they'd do it no questions asked. I've done both of these things with Amex and Chase and it's usually a painless process for each. With the chargeback route, however, it's common for companies to retaliate by closing your accounts or otherwise refusing you service until you reverse the chargeback. If you actually tried to chargeback the macbook I wouldn't be surprised if you found yourself with a "your iCloud account will be closed in 30 days" email. When I charged back a local CSA for refusing to cancel my subscription without an onerous phone tree despite multiple emails I received a voicemail saying, very politely, "Your account is now closed but you will be banned from ever opening a new account with us in the future." Fine by me...
        dannyw 6y ago
        Australian here, in my card chargeback form there’s literally an option for “The good I received is defective and the seller has declined to remedy”.
- 14 6y ago
  In Canada the law states that one person in the conversation must agree to the recording which means if you want to record yourself it is perfectly legal and no need to tell the other person you are recording. So if they did this to a Canadian developer they could record them without asking or letting Apple know.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- praptak 6y ago
  > Deleting old communications is a classic tactic employed by organizations that anticipate lawsuits and associated discovery. Every sufficiently big organisation starts doing it soon after the first bogus lawsuit that costs them millions of dollars.
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    As a trillion dollar company with hundreds of billions in the bank we can expect more from them. And if the legal system has perverse incentives that should be fixed through reform, not apathy.
    - praptak 6y ago
      I don't think that any reform of the legal system can get rid of people whose business model is litigation. You can't get rid of legal trolls without denying justice to actual victims of corporate wrongdoing. Also, I would be extremely suspicious of any reform of the legal system coming from megacorps. This is not to say the system cannot be improved, it's just wicked hard and you cannot blame any single actor for not doing that.
      - 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
  - grumple 6y ago
    It’s not bogus if they lost the lawsuit.
  - bibbitybobbity 6y ago
    Pointing out that this happens specifically when companies maximizes for prioritizes profit instead of the benefit of their product (which was what allowed them to gain such traction). It does feel prevalent in large corporations though.
- fierarul 6y ago
  I can confirm the only phone call I got from Apple was to explain why they can't accept my app. It was a small display test app / game which apparently is not allowed as the users might start thinking they have a defective product (and perhaps ask for a refund / replacement).
fossuser 6y ago
I know YouTube premium just charges a 30% up charge if you sign up via IAP in iOS. I’m not sure if this is in violation of the rules or not. It is convenient as a user to be able to manage subscriptions via iOS which makes it easy to track and cancel, but 30% seems way too high for this? Forcing IAP while taking a 30% cut seems like rent seeking when [edit: you control the only place users can get apps on your platform]. Extra problematic in the Spotify case where you compete directly and undercut them. I’d prefer a forced IAP requirement where Apple didn’t take a cut (or they just charged some up front fee or something). (Meta: McTossOut, your comments are dead - I’m not sure why)
- sircastor 6y ago
  Is it the dominate platform? It's certainly a very popular one, but dominate makes me think of Windows Vs Mac in the 90s. 90%+ market share type stuff. Android, while not managed by a single manufacturer, is a unified platform and competitor to iOS.
  - fossuser 6y ago
    I edited my comment since being dominant or not is not really relevant to the App Store control point.
- iphone_elegance 6y ago
  A while ago the 30% upcharge for iOS users was against the rules, now it's allowed. It sounds nice but if you're a Spotify or Netflix it lets Apple undercut you very easily I do think 30% is a bit much these days when the store first opened it was a great deal vs the other options at the time
  - Tostino 6y ago
    And you're not allowed to even point users to your website where they could sign up without the 30% tax due to Apple not allowing that. These anti-competitive practices are just over the top in my opinion, I really wish businesses like this would be broken up.
dreamcompiler 6y ago
Could YC (and the VC community in general) put pressure on Apple to fix this nonsense? Like encouraging startups to create Android-only apps?
- McTossOut 6y ago
  Not really. If the system is too efficient, it just informs Apple which functionalities they should resorb and provide as their own service.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- anoncareer0212 6y ago
  The bill for this has been coming since Apple figured out they could upsell everyone to backup their iPhones and add a new line to their revenue statement for Wall Street - back then we talked a lot about Apple becoming a _services_ company like Google, having values like shipping iteratively with scheduled stable releases with feature flags to enable/disable landmines in the field. Today, "services" means Apple has a button at the top of the Settings app...for Apple TV Plus, meanwhile macOS is so neglected you cant drag files into folders anymore and iOS has had historically unstable releases 2 of the last 3 years. All that to say, it takes a while for chickens to come home to roost, and we _just_ started taking steps in that direction. Direct action like this is unlikely, but its the beginning of 1000 people making 1000000 small decisions that will amplify accountability.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    Most of this is simply not true. 1) There is no AppleTV+ button on the Settings app. 2) You can absolutely drag files into folders on OSX. I do it everyday. 3) iOS is just as stable as it has ever been. Curious when this utopia of incredibly stable releases was. 4) Services for Apple actually means App Store, Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple News+ etc. You know some tens of billions a year.
    - 6y ago
ancorevard 6y ago
As a consumer, I hope nothing changes with the App Store. It may be tough for some app developers, but it sure is a haven for consumers.
- sitzkrieg 6y ago
  how do you figure? its not that much better with a huge markup
  - cgriswald 6y ago
    I will say the subscription stuff is nice because if I want to cancel something I don’t have to play games, make a tedious phone call (with “exit interview/sales pitch”) or go around in circles on support pages that promise to tell you how to cancel and then lead to a page that doesn’t exist, or actually cancel and have them “forget”, or have them cancel immediately but not give me a prorated refund, or any other shenanigans companies have pulled. I just click a button and it’s done. The service continues through the date I’m paid up until and then is properly canceled.
- belltaco 6y ago
  Yeah I sure love a lot of my money going to middlemen instead of people actually making the things I am buying.
  - threeseed 6y ago
    You sure Apple has no role in making the things you are buying. They do design and build the phones, SDKs, Developer Tools etc that makes these apps even any good. I used to build apps for Blackberry and Palm devices and I can assure you that their contribution should not be understated.
    - camgunz 6y ago
      Isn’t the whole idea “add value to iOS”? What am I missing?
realtalk_sp 6y ago
They would have to start by not demoting submissions with comment threads that explore this issue. This submission from 6 hours ago with 124 upvotes and 212 comments (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23568095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23568095) is not showing up in the first 120 items on Hacker News and I have no idea why. I've posted in a few places asking @dang to explain and I'm just getting downvoted. Extremely troubling. EDIT: I just got up to submission 270 and still don't see it. That submission has almost certainly been hidden somehow to prevent further discovery. EDIT 2: I highly suspect Apple is somehow putting pressure on HN to do this. The way these submissions are being 'controlled' is really disturbing. And it would make perfect sense for Apple to try and control discussion on HN. We basically destroyed TripleByte in just the past month. Anything scandalous affecting developers can turn into a company-melting shitstorm via HN.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- LegitShady 6y ago
  This site is heavily moderated (read: manipulated) by its owners/mods, and I expect censorship for anything that might threaten their business relationships or cause controversy they don't want. It's more restrictive than reddit today, let alone reddit when it blew up. I'm not sure to what extent the narratives here are organic or not.
  - rising-sky 6y ago
    I'm sorry but I don't think it is helpful to make claims like this without presenting evidence, otherwise it's just an assumption, which is fodder for unfounded conspiracy theories, which again is not really constructive. It reminds me of a saying: "people criticize what they don't understand"
    - LegitShady 6y ago
      I understand it, I just dont think there's a purpose in arguing control of a platform they own. This site is heavily manipulated, the moderation is heavy, and censorship (things disappearing) make it hard to present evidence, just like the post in question 'disappeared' until it suddenly appeared. It only changes how you should perceive the site, it doesn't change anything else. Understand that anything controversial or not in YC's interest will disappear and won't be available for 'evidence'. This is a great place to talk about computer stuff, but I don't believe any narratives here are organic by default.
localhost3000 6y ago
Versions of this have happened to me multiple times over the years. They never budge. The developer always gets screwed. I will never build on the App Store again.
stephc_int13 6y ago
The platform cut on app store is outrageous and has been for years. This is nothing else than a tax. And because both Apple and Google are adjusted on the same tax rate, this is exactly like a monopoly. I am sure their infrastructure costs are largely covered at this point. Developers should unite and strongly ask for a progressive reduction, a few percents each year.
- coronadisaster 6y ago
  maybe developers should create their own store that would be web-based
  - harpratap 6y ago
    Possible on Android but not on iOS
    - choicenotchance 6y ago
      Maybe perhaps an organised revolution ? All developers of iOS should just stop supporting already existing apps, or move to Android. And users should just know that iDevices are not supported anymore. Only if a rebellion is staged, will Apple take notice.
  - stephc_int13 6y ago
    You mean web-apps?
    - coronadisaster 6y ago
      I'm talking about an open platform that would make it painless for users to pay for any "app" made by any provider... it could be either a website that aggregates all web apps or a native open-app-store...
  - spiderfarmer 6y ago
    Apple also cripples PWA's so that's not an option.
tjholowaychuk 6y ago
I installed Hey to check it out and it’s useless from the app itself, it’s not too surprising they don’t want bad UX.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  It’s an app for users of the service. The Netflix app is useless without a subscription, too.
  - greiskul 6y ago
    It's like if an university released an app for it's student body, they were forced to allow anybody to sign up to the university with Apple pay. And give Apple 30% of the tuition.
    - etchalon 6y ago
      Except Apple specifically exempts real world services, because they agree. That'd be insane.
      - camgunz 6y ago
        How is email not a real world service. What even is a non-real world service?
        etchalon 6y ago
        Digital goods are not real world services. Labor, food, physical products, etc. are considered "real world services" according to Apple's language.
        camgunz 6y ago
        I’ll buy that (ironically) when they make iCloud free.
andy_ppp 6y ago
When Tim Cooke went on about services I didn’t realise he meant stealing 30% of other people’s. Seems insane to me this racketeering is legal, I actually think people should be jailed for behaviour like this...
- stephc_int13 6y ago
  It could be even worse, when those things are left unchecked they tend to increase over time. I've seen that with Handango (they raised from 30% to 40% and then 50%) and they went bankrupt when the App Store launched. Same story with the phone operators, their margins was in the 50% range.
  - fomojola 6y ago
    I'll echo this: 30% is terrible, till you consider the alternatives. Before the app store it was 3 month lead times via a broker to hopefully get in front of a carrier rep who would usually go "meh" and send you packing. If they liked it, they'd take (if you were lucky) 50% with holds of up to 3 months on payouts. Can't say I'm a huge fan of the 30% haircut, but I get to push my product directly to millions of people in a week and get paid monthly? What a time to be alive.
    - rydre 6y ago
      Hold on to your papers.
    - stephc_int13 6y ago
      There are no alternatives today. And I am perfectly aware that the situation was even worse before the App Store. In fact, by all means, Apple created a viable ecosystem for a huge number of independant developers and that's great. Still, 30% is not justified, and this is not Apple hate, Google and Valve are on the same boat.
      - threeseed 6y ago
        Don't forget about retailers, supermarkets, ecommerce sites etc. If you are shocked that companies take a fee for distribution then wait until you see how things work in the real world.
risyachka 6y ago
I personally don't have a problem with 30% (sure I with it was more like 15% :) - this is their store, they are not forcing you to buy a phone or laptop. If you do then you agree to the rules. My main problem is that they apply their rules to everyone in a different way, just like Google. And they don't even hide it and have written in their TOS that if your app is deleted for a violation, and another app is not it is ok and they decide if to enforce tos or not. If they remove my app for violation - no problem. I can even do their job and send them links to apps that have the same violation, so they can remove them too. Nope, only my app.
- burlesona 6y ago
  Yeah I came here to post the same. I don't actually think the App Store policies are the problem per se, but rather the fact that you can submit your app and really not know what the result is going to be. Maybe there are edge cases where you know going in that it may require subjective approval, but for a run of the mill commercial / personal app you should be able to easily check if you're compliant and get a very fast approval. Treating each developer and app case by case is just bad faith.
- stephc_int13 6y ago
  Most retailers have margins in the range of 0.5% to 4.5% 30% is clearly not a reasonable margin...
  - doctor_eval 6y ago
    I think placement in the App Store should be considered not in terms of credit card fees but more like placement on the shelves of a supermarket. I don’t know the economics of supermarkets but I do know it’s not just cost+. Sellers have to buy display space, participate in promotions, etc etc - all on top of the cost of the actual goods. I’m too lazy to look it up but I wouldn’t be surprised if the gross margin in the App Store is in the same region as for non essential supermarket goods.
    - arvinsim 6y ago
rising-sky 6y ago
> 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. Schiller gives one more example: an RSS app that reads any feed, but also reads an upgraded feed that could be charged for on a separate site. In both cases, the apps would have functionality when downloaded on the store. Comments by Apple executive, Phil Schiller[1]. Is this not an agreeable solution? It's a separate debate that Apple may be charging exorbitant fees for App Store distribution when there is no competition and one that needs to be addressed, but I think this is a decent workaround, Apple is saying you can put stuff on the App Store and if it has a free version with functionality then we don't charge you for it. Otherwise, we do. [1] https://9to5mac.com/2020/06/18/schiller-hey-app-store-policy/ https://9to5mac.com/2020/06/18/schiller-hey-app-store-policy...
- arvinsim 6y ago
  So Apple can now dictate the business models of 3rd party apps?
  - redwall_hp 6y ago
    I'd go even further: "unrelated third party web services that just happen to supply an app for the phone." I'm pretty sure people independently buy Netflix to use, without even considering their phone. They have a laptop or a set top box or whatever. But because people might want to use it on their phone, Apple thinks they deserve 1/3 of Netflix's revenue?
- tdeck 6y ago
  I don't see how this is a decent or agreeable workaround. Hey is a paid email service that comes with an @hey.com email address. Either they have to start giving those addresses out for free (a significant change in Hey's business model), or they need to support connecting to an IMAP provider in the app (presumably they don't currently support this, so it would be a significant amount of extra engineering to support non-paying users). Perhaps if they could just throw in a calculator or something as the free version.
ryandrake 6y ago
Unpopular opinion, but if you want to make a game for the PS4, you need to play by Sony's rules or find another platform. Or if you want to write an app that runs on Toyota's head units, you need to play by Toyota's rules, no matter how frustrating they are. Same goes for building an iOS app. You're writing something for an appliance, not for a general purpose computer. I used to be an iOS developer, and that was kind of the faustian bargain we all made: Play by their (sometimes objectionable, sometimes unevenly enforced) rules or GTFO.
- stephc_int13 6y ago
  The problem is when all the platforms are enforcing the same rules and the same cut-throat taxes.
- 43920 6y ago
  1) iOS devices are effectively general-purpose computers at this point (and the only computing devices owned by a significant number of people). 2) Why shouldn't I be able to write an app for my game console?
  - ryandrake 6y ago
    iOS devices are empirically not general purpose computers, since their manufacturer deliberately specifies applications’ allowed and disallowed purposes. > shouldn’t I’m simply describing how things are and not making judgments about how they should be. Apple treats iPhones as appliances that have allowed and disallowed purposes, and rules of the road for app distribution. Every iOS developer who makes a living on the platform knows this is the deal. Going on your blog and acting all surprised that this is the case shows that you either don’t have much experience working with the platform or didn’t do your due diligence before getting into the business.
    - 43920 6y ago
      I guess I'm using a different definition of "general purpose computer" - IMO, it's defined not so much by the device design, but rather what people do with it. It's possible to do almost everything you can do with a normal computer on an iOS device, and for many people, it's their primary or only computing device, which I think makes it sufficiently "general purpose". (There's also the other definition of "general purpose", which is that you can install your own OS on it and have full control over what software you run. I think Apple should allow that too, but that's sort of a different issue).
dontblink 6y ago
There should be an App Store union that boycotts Apple's policies to help to the App developers shift some of the balance of power.
- spiderfarmer 6y ago
  I think there should be a functioning government that makes sure we all have a healthy economy where monopolies and duopolies are kept in check.
paragraft 6y ago
One aspect that bugs me about the situation that I've not seen mentioned is this disingenuous language Apple employs repeatedly in justifying its right to a percentage take on the basis of the services it's providing in distribution etc. Eg they even describe how Basecamp's been providing apps for free for years on their platform in the email to DHH, with overtones of Basecamp being freeloaders, and they've only been getting by by Apple's forebearance. Yet that argument completely underplays that it's a two-way street - Apple gets enormous value from the aggregate weight of the collective of developers who make native apps for iOS, adding collective value to iOS products. But you never see Apple concede this. I'd even posit that even if all the apps on the App Store were free (at least free from an Apple tax), it would still be worthwhile for Apple to run it, in terms of sustaining the value of the ecosystem for iPhone buyers.
Tehdasi 6y ago
Hmm I wonder if the SomethingAwful reader app is liable to be hit by this. Since it requires a login which you do have to pay for, but the app is actually done by a 3rd paty.
paulajohnson 6y ago
Yet another reason why not to be a sharecropper.
gameswithgo 6y ago
Developers really should stage a revolt on both Google and Apple's mobile phone ecosystems. They have ruined computing for users (locked down systems with no ability to tinker) and make it impossible to have any viable business on their platforms, since they have total control over you, can shut you down at any time without recourse, and retroactively change terms. It is part of a larger trend of evolving business world where small players are doomed.
- graton 6y ago
  This is not 100% correct for Google. Realistically yes I agree. But you can at least install a 3rd Party app store on Android, as I have done with F-droid. Also I believe Amazon has an App store too. The percentage of people who do that is very small I realize. Now Apple does not offer anyway that I have heard of for people to offer an alternative app store.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    While you CAN sideload an app on Android, it would still be crippled on modern versions of Android, because it would not be able to receive push notifications. Coupled with the fact that recent versions of Android aggressively offload background apps from memory, many types of applications function with great difficulty. This CAN be overcome by a special app that keeps connection with an alternative push notification server, but it would still be prone to offloading and would have to run a persistent notification. The proper solution would be unlocking notification services on Android devices and allowing to chose alternative push notifications providers. This can also be applied to iOS.
    - namibj 6y ago
      The thing is, though, that Firebase push notifications are deeply integrated with mobile networks. They get special treatment to ensure energy-efficient operation, at the cost of more idle connections hanging in the network infrastructure. Yes, with IPv6 that should/could become much less relevant, but then you loose the traffic-flood-DoS protections you get from CG-NAT.
etchalon 6y ago
I never really get the argument that Apple is somehow some horrible villain here. If you own a store, you sell products at a markup. That's how it works. You buy a widget for 0.50 and you sell it for 1.00. You could say "That retailer is stealing 0.50 from the producer!" but no one says that.
- stephc_int13 6y ago
  Take a look at the usual margins in the retail market, online or offline. What we're seeing does not look like what should happen in a free market. The mobile market is a duopoly.
  - etchalon 6y ago
    Have you ever sold anything at wholesale to a retailer? A 30% cut is not remotely unheard of. Different products obviously have vastly different margins, but 30% isn't outside of reason, depending on the industry. But absolutely, the mobile market is a duopoly. Consumers and developers, who used to have a wider ranger of choices, opted to primarily pick one of two experiences, over and over again, until those were the only viable experiences.
- grey-area 6y ago
  They're using their near monopoly in one area (app store) to make competitor apps worse and extract income from them. For example kindle is not allowed to sell books (unlike ibooks), hey is not allowed to sell subscriptions, yet other apps are. Classic abusive monopolistic behaviour, the enforcement is completely inconsistent and the fees high enough to put competitors out of business. Apple are not buying products then selling them at a markup, they're forcing their users and suppliers to transact at the company store at a high markup then raking in a huge profit because they own the platform. Your analogy makes no sense.
  - etchalon 6y ago
    They're selling a products to their users, sourcing those products from suppliers, and charging a markup for doing so. The problem is that, for whatever reason, people seem to believe they're entitled to access to Apple's users without any restrictions. Which is like demanding Walmart stock your CD "because reasons!"
chuinard 6y ago
I'm ready for the downvotes but I don't think the App Store cut is crazy. They do reduce to 15% if you have long-running subscriptions with your user. Credit cards charge 3% to start. Apple handles distribution, updates, etc. Taking 15% at the end of the day isn't terrible. And hey, they made the super shiny beloved iOS platform too in the first place, not to mention the SDK that makes the apps even possible to build! DHH is just trying to ride cancel culture to get enough people to tweet / complain towards Apple in hopes that they cave.
durpkingOP 6y ago
boohoo
stephc_int13 6y ago
Related: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-18/microsoft-says-antitrust-regulators-need-to-review-app-stores https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-18/microsoft...
bonestormii_ 6y ago
I think the problem is the way they lock in their users by holding their personal data hostage in heir ecosystem. Your music in itunes. Your already-paid apps in the appstore that won't transfer to android. Your ridiculously expensive phone. Your ridiculously expensive headphones that inexplicably won't work on android phone. They own their users. And then they own the store. So then, they own the app developers. It's bullshit. You don't get to own everyone all the time in all those market places just because you sit on a mountain of money. Screw apple.
- perl4ever 6y ago
  Way back in the 70s somebody was pissed off at Bill Gates for calling hobbyists pirates and told him if he wanted to get paid for software, he should be more creative, maybe sell it along with hardware. At least since then, everyone has been pursuing that line of thought. Just some at times are particularly successful.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  >They own their users. In my experience, Windows owned me. I spent far more time (and money) dealing with malware and low quality hardware running windows than I ever have with the Apple devices I have used. The amortized cost of an Apple device is far lower than equivalent Windows (or Androids), if you include time and stress and probably money too since my family uses iPhones and iPads and MacBook Airs for 5+ years.
  - bonestormii_ 6y ago
    My jaw is on the floor. How did you get so much malware and such poor hardware? I love my iphone 7 and my macbook air from 2013--no doubt, they are very good. But I could throw my windows pc in the garbage and rebuy it a couple of times over for the cost of comparable hardware from apple, and I'm just not having the problems you are describing. This is like 6 year old computer that was about $1,300 in parts. It's like, just some asus motherboard with mismatched ram and a video card.... and it works fine. My mom has a 10 year old windows computer that just keeps on spreadsheeting and e-mailing for her... just fine. I just don't understand. I've also had apple hardware that has issues. The notion that it is issue free is just not true.
alberth 6y ago
Am I alone in thinking this isn’t Apple being as bad as others are making them out to be? I’ll explain ... Apple deeply cares about two things, (1) user experience and (2) user privacy. Today, Hey iOS when downloaded IS NOT FUNCTIONAL if you didn’t know to already sign up for the service on their website. That’s a horrible experience and no one likes it. Especially Apple. On Trust/Privacy, Apple is safe guarding users CardOnFile data with all of their advanced security features that they have worked directly with the major card networks that no small developers (or even frankly medium or large developer) could compete with. This benefits the consumer by reducing fraud, and not having your credit card data sitting in some developers data unencrypted. Apple also helps auto update cardonfile data when the card expires so that the developers don’t lose revenue just because of expired cards. As for the 30% fee, why shouldn’t they get a cut? If the App Store was a physical brick and mortar store Like BestBuy, I guarantee you then BestBuy wants to make margin on products they allow in their store. (A) it’s a distribution channel to a consumer you as a developer don’t have, (B) there’s hard costs to putting your product in the App Store “shelf” and (C) Apple is providing all of the easy and secure payment processing on behalf of thr developer. Note: I’m not trying to be combative. I’m just playing devils advocate and pointing out this topic is way more complex than others are making it out to be.
- tathougies 6y ago
  > As for the 30% fee, why shouldn’t they get a cut? Because it's anti-competitive (Supreme Court agrees...). It's not apple's responsibility to help me safeguard my credit card data.
  - alberth 6y ago
    Can you provide a reference to your comment about the “Supreme court agrees”. I don’t know what youre referring too.
    - tathougies 6y ago
      https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/13/supreme-court-rules-against-apple-allowing-an-app-store-antitrust-case-to-proceed/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/13/supreme-court-rules-agains...
hejja 6y ago
imo this is less clear-cut than people are making it out to be. I'm not saying I'm with Apple. In fact I hate platform fees. But if I have a game and say, "my game is subscription based" to circumvent in-app purchases, how is that different? In other words, where do you draw the line
donttakemyapps 6y ago
Throwaway for reasons. I have >10 apps for external clients currently in the App Store that are exactly like Hey (not email clients though), focussed on business+consumer clients, with a login and you have to order outside the store to be able to login. We even reference to that in some of the apps. You can't do anything in the app until you pay for a subscription on the repspective site. The most recent one got approved 2 months ago, and some apps are >2 years old and have received regular updates. The difference may be that they do not have the revenue Basecamp has. In the past when an app got refused, we resubmitted without changes and got approved. It's a shitshow.
- taneq 6y ago
  The justification seems to be that "without a login it's useless" - could you get around that by having a demo mode that lets you use the app with a dummy account?
- raydev 6y ago
  I think this is just recent enforcement, and Hey is a bit too late. I've seen some speculation that other non-billion dollar apps will be getting similiar rejections soon.
- ddalex 6y ago
  Apple said that they allow this for B2B (enterprise) apps.
seek3r00 6y ago
Preface I think that you should always talk about average users. There is no point in talking about technical users that make up a small slice of the market pie. I’m an Apple customer. I’ve an iPhone but I’m still horrified from needing to buy a developer account (which is like 99$) to install (my) apps on my iPhone (only). It would be probably possible for Apple to enable checks for personal apps, executing apps that are signed with the same iCloud account or something like that (doing all the checks on the device, no servers involved). Never mind that macOS is a hot mess for (some) developers, right now. So, yeah, I have some issues with Apple too. On compensation I see a certain similarity between Hey, Spotify, Restocks. They all are (paid) apps trying to take advantage of Apple user base, without compensating Apple for it. Meanwhile, Apple is expected to keep paying for the App Store servers, its curation team and its app approval team. Obviously smartphones are getting better hence (average) users will buy a new phone less often and Apple is expected to keep supporting old devices for 5/6 years and it has to pay the engineers who work on the OSes and the APIs, and the non-engineers that keep the show running. You could argue that Android and Google are better. But Android is not Google’s main business, ads are. Google has built (mostly free) services that generate data about its users, which is then used a bait for advertisers. No one cares if you’re using F-droid instead of the Play Store, Google is still getting its checks from you and your org using Gmail, Analytics, AdSense, YouTube, etc... On side loading Side loading apps (for the average user) is risky and it’s mostly done for three reasons IMO: - cracking apps - accessing apps that are not allowed on the Play Store - escape Google I don’t really have much to say about side loading. I’m too biased against it, so maybe someone else could convince me that it’s a good thing. Conclusion What would happen if Apple allowed apps to use external payment options (like Stripe)? Well, the obvious, no one would use IAP because there would be much cheaper services that are not compensating Apple. Apple is far from perfect: - the App Store approval process is a mess - the communication process is broken (removing old message exchanges, come on...) - they really don’t seem to care about indie developers However, although Apple needs developers to keep running the show, without no Apple there is no iOS, no App Store. It’s a tricky problem to solve.
- fossuser 6y ago
  I'm not persuaded it's that tricky. Apple makes money from selling hardware devices at a markup, that's their core business and the reason people like them. They're also laying the groundwork for the next computing platform: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5J_6oMMG7Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5J_6oMMG7Y They could force IAP on iOS because it's better for users (track subscription, cancel) - without forcing profit sharing/rent seeking. They could charge some reasonable fee for initially distributing the app or for a dev account (which they already do). Taking a cut of all profits on the platform whether you compete directly (spotify vs. apple music) or not, is greedy. It's also lazy, you're taking money without providing equivalent value. I'd argue companies that focus on doing this kind of thing end up fat, lazy, and hated. (Steve Ballmer's Microsoft).
fxtentacle 6y ago
"Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut" and then this. I believe DHH is correct that this is anticompetitive behavior and should be punished the legal way.
WA 6y ago
I have a consumer app that tried to go they Hey route (no signup, no reference to website, no IAPs), but was rejected immediately (2017), despite many other apps that do exactly that. I had to implement IAPs to have it approved.
PeterStuer 6y ago
Fairly telling that these corporations that are themselves tax dodging any way they can and then some on a global scale are so draconian against people trying to dodge their taxe regime.
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
_ph_ 6y ago
The discussions about "Hey" show, the question of the App Store is a complex problem. And I think it is a complex problem, because Apple made the rules far too simple to work, as reality is complex. And because of actions driven by putting the revenue over customer service. Customer in this context means both the customers using the app store and the developers selling on the app store. The App Store rules cover many aspects, which should not be mixed in my eyes. First: security. Reviewing apps for security is a great feature. Having a place to get reviewed apps is gread for the end customer. But many rules, like the ones about in-app purchases, have little or nothing to do with security. About curation: yes, it is a great feature, if an App Store is curated and the quality of apps is ensured. And yes, offering in-app purchases is great for the customer, as it is safe and anonymous. Yet, Apple does little to curate all the freemium games, which are pretty trivial apps which allow you to spend enourmeous amounts of money on a game. Spending in excess of $100 for a silly simple game should be considered as profiteering if not outright fraudulent. But this seems to be ok in the App Store as long as you pay your 30%... Besides that Apple obviously often does a bad job when curating the App Store, there are many examples, like "Hey", that show, that the overly simplistic App Store rules far too often just don't fit all business models. Therefore, there should be more differentiation in the level of services offered by Apple to the developers and the developers be able to choose the service model with its associated costs, which fits them best. I think Hey profits a lot from being in the App Store, even from offering in-App purchases, as this is very customer-friendly, both from a convenience and security point. And of course, Apple is entitled to get a share of the profit Hey makes from being on the App store. But currently Apple doesn't charge on the profit, but on the gross revenue, which is difficult for a lot companies. And this in a world, where to do business basically means, that you have to offer an app. As an example, but it is not as far fetched as it may sound, consider Tesla. Tesla is a company, which sells their product via the web. They also offer an App, which is basically required to use their product - for example arranging service appointments is done via apps. Also for operating the car, the app is extremely useful. Should Apple now require Tesla to offer in-app purchases to the customers? Yes, it would be extremely convenient to be able to buy your car in the app, as it is done on the web otherwise. But obviously, Tesla couldn't afford the 30% share of the car price. Does this give Apple the right to ban the Tesla app from the App Store with all consequences? If you think about it, this case isn't so much more far-fetched than the case of Hey.
nico_h 6y ago
I think the other thing that sticks out is the prohibition for developer to charge different price in and out of the app store (seems to be somewhat relaxed, for example expressVPN, or maybe the trick is to not offer the exact same bundle?) and the related prohibition to mention the price difference when subscribing outside the app store. If apple was so confident in the value of the app store they would let the consumer make the choice instead of preventing even a hint of competition. e.g.: Tap here to subscribe right now for $X (monitor your subscription in the app store app). Subscribe on our site for $(.7*X) by entering your credit card information. Then let apple adjust the numbers until they have the same amount of signups as before, that would let the customer decide on the value of the "Apple Convenience Tax" instead of preventing information disclosure.

384 points by firloop 6y ago

The fact that Apple is scrubbing text communications and discussing certain sensitive things with developers only over the phone is supremely shady. Deleting old communications is a classic tactic employed by organizations that anticipate lawsuits and associated discovery. It's amazing that they've formulated a comprehensive set of internal business practices directed at sustaining this racket.

cheez 6y ago
their lawyers ain't cheap.
giancarlostoro 6y ago
Force Apple to communicate via email or other comms out of their control.
- whycombagator 6y ago
  How are you going to force Apple to do that?
  - giancarlostoro 6y ago
    You telling them your preferred medium of communication would be one way. See a sibling comment for the result of that alone in some situations.
- statictype 6y ago
  I had a long argument with Apple Support over their refusal to replace my shitty Macbook keyboard under their warranty program. Finally I asked them to give me their rejection in a formal email. Two days later the support person called back and said they made 'an exception' in my case and are happy to fix it under warranty.
  - verall 6y ago
    In this case it is because you need that rejection email in writing to go file a claim with your credit card and trigger your purchase protection. As soon as Apple (or whoever) thinks you will take this route, they are happy to limit their losses and replace it before you can file a claim that could result in chargeback.
    - _rs 6y ago
      Would credit card extended warranties and protection result in a charge back? I thought the credit card companies paid these out as benefits, and usually reserved for cards with annual fees.
      - zaksoup 6y ago
        There's two routes you could go down - file a warranty claim on a higher-end card that provides extended warranties. Cards usually also allow you to request a chargeback against defective goods for which a merchant refuses to make you whole. In this case you could probably call up Amex or whatever and say "I bought a laptop that is defective within the warranty period and apple refuses to RMA it, here's the proof..." and they'd do it no questions asked. I've done both of these things with Amex and Chase and it's usually a painless process for each. With the chargeback route, however, it's common for companies to retaliate by closing your accounts or otherwise refusing you service until you reverse the chargeback. If you actually tried to chargeback the macbook I wouldn't be surprised if you found yourself with a "your iCloud account will be closed in 30 days" email. When I charged back a local CSA for refusing to cancel my subscription without an onerous phone tree despite multiple emails I received a voicemail saying, very politely, "Your account is now closed but you will be banned from ever opening a new account with us in the future." Fine by me...
        dannyw 6y ago
        Australian here, in my card chargeback form there’s literally an option for “The good I received is defective and the seller has declined to remedy”.
14 6y ago
In Canada the law states that one person in the conversation must agree to the recording which means if you want to record yourself it is perfectly legal and no need to tell the other person you are recording. So if they did this to a Canadian developer they could record them without asking or letting Apple know.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
praptak 6y ago
> Deleting old communications is a classic tactic employed by organizations that anticipate lawsuits and associated discovery. Every sufficiently big organisation starts doing it soon after the first bogus lawsuit that costs them millions of dollars.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  As a trillion dollar company with hundreds of billions in the bank we can expect more from them. And if the legal system has perverse incentives that should be fixed through reform, not apathy.
  - praptak 6y ago
    I don't think that any reform of the legal system can get rid of people whose business model is litigation. You can't get rid of legal trolls without denying justice to actual victims of corporate wrongdoing. Also, I would be extremely suspicious of any reform of the legal system coming from megacorps. This is not to say the system cannot be improved, it's just wicked hard and you cannot blame any single actor for not doing that.
    - 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
- grumple 6y ago
  It’s not bogus if they lost the lawsuit.
- bibbitybobbity 6y ago
  Pointing out that this happens specifically when companies maximizes for prioritizes profit instead of the benefit of their product (which was what allowed them to gain such traction). It does feel prevalent in large corporations though.
fierarul 6y ago
I can confirm the only phone call I got from Apple was to explain why they can't accept my app. It was a small display test app / game which apparently is not allowed as the users might start thinking they have a defective product (and perhaps ask for a refund / replacement).

fossuser 6y ago

I know YouTube premium just charges a 30% up charge if you sign up via IAP in iOS. I’m not sure if this is in violation of the rules or not. It is convenient as a user to be able to manage subscriptions via iOS which makes it easy to track and cancel, but 30% seems way too high for this? Forcing IAP while taking a 30% cut seems like rent seeking when [edit: you control the only place users can get apps on your platform]. Extra problematic in the Spotify case where you compete directly and undercut them. I’d prefer a forced IAP requirement where Apple didn’t take a cut (or they just charged some up front fee or something). (Meta: McTossOut, your comments are dead - I’m not sure why)

sircastor 6y ago
Is it the dominate platform? It's certainly a very popular one, but dominate makes me think of Windows Vs Mac in the 90s. 90%+ market share type stuff. Android, while not managed by a single manufacturer, is a unified platform and competitor to iOS.
- fossuser 6y ago
  I edited my comment since being dominant or not is not really relevant to the App Store control point.
iphone_elegance 6y ago
A while ago the 30% upcharge for iOS users was against the rules, now it's allowed. It sounds nice but if you're a Spotify or Netflix it lets Apple undercut you very easily I do think 30% is a bit much these days when the store first opened it was a great deal vs the other options at the time
- Tostino 6y ago
  And you're not allowed to even point users to your website where they could sign up without the 30% tax due to Apple not allowing that. These anti-competitive practices are just over the top in my opinion, I really wish businesses like this would be broken up.

dreamcompiler 6y ago

Could YC (and the VC community in general) put pressure on Apple to fix this nonsense? Like encouraging startups to create Android-only apps?

McTossOut 6y ago
Not really. If the system is too efficient, it just informs Apple which functionalities they should resorb and provide as their own service.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
anoncareer0212 6y ago
The bill for this has been coming since Apple figured out they could upsell everyone to backup their iPhones and add a new line to their revenue statement for Wall Street - back then we talked a lot about Apple becoming a _services_ company like Google, having values like shipping iteratively with scheduled stable releases with feature flags to enable/disable landmines in the field. Today, "services" means Apple has a button at the top of the Settings app...for Apple TV Plus, meanwhile macOS is so neglected you cant drag files into folders anymore and iOS has had historically unstable releases 2 of the last 3 years. All that to say, it takes a while for chickens to come home to roost, and we _just_ started taking steps in that direction. Direct action like this is unlikely, but its the beginning of 1000 people making 1000000 small decisions that will amplify accountability.
- threeseed 6y ago
  Most of this is simply not true. 1) There is no AppleTV+ button on the Settings app. 2) You can absolutely drag files into folders on OSX. I do it everyday. 3) iOS is just as stable as it has ever been. Curious when this utopia of incredibly stable releases was. 4) Services for Apple actually means App Store, Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple News+ etc. You know some tens of billions a year.
  - 6y ago

ancorevard 6y ago

As a consumer, I hope nothing changes with the App Store. It may be tough for some app developers, but it sure is a haven for consumers.

sitzkrieg 6y ago
how do you figure? its not that much better with a huge markup
- cgriswald 6y ago
  I will say the subscription stuff is nice because if I want to cancel something I don’t have to play games, make a tedious phone call (with “exit interview/sales pitch”) or go around in circles on support pages that promise to tell you how to cancel and then lead to a page that doesn’t exist, or actually cancel and have them “forget”, or have them cancel immediately but not give me a prorated refund, or any other shenanigans companies have pulled. I just click a button and it’s done. The service continues through the date I’m paid up until and then is properly canceled.
belltaco 6y ago
Yeah I sure love a lot of my money going to middlemen instead of people actually making the things I am buying.
- threeseed 6y ago
  You sure Apple has no role in making the things you are buying. They do design and build the phones, SDKs, Developer Tools etc that makes these apps even any good. I used to build apps for Blackberry and Palm devices and I can assure you that their contribution should not be understated.
  - camgunz 6y ago
    Isn’t the whole idea “add value to iOS”? What am I missing?

realtalk_sp 6y ago

They would have to start by not demoting submissions with comment threads that explore this issue. This submission from 6 hours ago with 124 upvotes and 212 comments (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23568095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23568095) is not showing up in the first 120 items on Hacker News and I have no idea why. I've posted in a few places asking @dang to explain and I'm just getting downvoted. Extremely troubling. EDIT: I just got up to submission 270 and still don't see it. That submission has almost certainly been hidden somehow to prevent further discovery. EDIT 2: I highly suspect Apple is somehow putting pressure on HN to do this. The way these submissions are being 'controlled' is really disturbing. And it would make perfect sense for Apple to try and control discussion on HN. We basically destroyed TripleByte in just the past month. Anything scandalous affecting developers can turn into a company-melting shitstorm via HN.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
LegitShady 6y ago
This site is heavily moderated (read: manipulated) by its owners/mods, and I expect censorship for anything that might threaten their business relationships or cause controversy they don't want. It's more restrictive than reddit today, let alone reddit when it blew up. I'm not sure to what extent the narratives here are organic or not.
- rising-sky 6y ago
  I'm sorry but I don't think it is helpful to make claims like this without presenting evidence, otherwise it's just an assumption, which is fodder for unfounded conspiracy theories, which again is not really constructive. It reminds me of a saying: "people criticize what they don't understand"
  - LegitShady 6y ago
    I understand it, I just dont think there's a purpose in arguing control of a platform they own. This site is heavily manipulated, the moderation is heavy, and censorship (things disappearing) make it hard to present evidence, just like the post in question 'disappeared' until it suddenly appeared. It only changes how you should perceive the site, it doesn't change anything else. Understand that anything controversial or not in YC's interest will disappear and won't be available for 'evidence'. This is a great place to talk about computer stuff, but I don't believe any narratives here are organic by default.

localhost3000 6y ago

Versions of this have happened to me multiple times over the years. They never budge. The developer always gets screwed. I will never build on the App Store again.

stephc_int13 6y ago

The platform cut on app store is outrageous and has been for years. This is nothing else than a tax. And because both Apple and Google are adjusted on the same tax rate, this is exactly like a monopoly. I am sure their infrastructure costs are largely covered at this point. Developers should unite and strongly ask for a progressive reduction, a few percents each year.

coronadisaster 6y ago
maybe developers should create their own store that would be web-based
- harpratap 6y ago
  Possible on Android but not on iOS
  - choicenotchance 6y ago
    Maybe perhaps an organised revolution ? All developers of iOS should just stop supporting already existing apps, or move to Android. And users should just know that iDevices are not supported anymore. Only if a rebellion is staged, will Apple take notice.
- stephc_int13 6y ago
  You mean web-apps?
  - coronadisaster 6y ago
    I'm talking about an open platform that would make it painless for users to pay for any "app" made by any provider... it could be either a website that aggregates all web apps or a native open-app-store...
- spiderfarmer 6y ago
  Apple also cripples PWA's so that's not an option.

tjholowaychuk 6y ago

I installed Hey to check it out and it’s useless from the app itself, it’s not too surprising they don’t want bad UX.

ceejayoz 6y ago
It’s an app for users of the service. The Netflix app is useless without a subscription, too.
- greiskul 6y ago
  It's like if an university released an app for it's student body, they were forced to allow anybody to sign up to the university with Apple pay. And give Apple 30% of the tuition.
  - etchalon 6y ago
    Except Apple specifically exempts real world services, because they agree. That'd be insane.
    - camgunz 6y ago
      How is email not a real world service. What even is a non-real world service?
      - etchalon 6y ago
        Digital goods are not real world services. Labor, food, physical products, etc. are considered "real world services" according to Apple's language.
        camgunz 6y ago
        I’ll buy that (ironically) when they make iCloud free.

andy_ppp 6y ago

When Tim Cooke went on about services I didn’t realise he meant stealing 30% of other people’s. Seems insane to me this racketeering is legal, I actually think people should be jailed for behaviour like this...

stephc_int13 6y ago
It could be even worse, when those things are left unchecked they tend to increase over time. I've seen that with Handango (they raised from 30% to 40% and then 50%) and they went bankrupt when the App Store launched. Same story with the phone operators, their margins was in the 50% range.
- fomojola 6y ago
  I'll echo this: 30% is terrible, till you consider the alternatives. Before the app store it was 3 month lead times via a broker to hopefully get in front of a carrier rep who would usually go "meh" and send you packing. If they liked it, they'd take (if you were lucky) 50% with holds of up to 3 months on payouts. Can't say I'm a huge fan of the 30% haircut, but I get to push my product directly to millions of people in a week and get paid monthly? What a time to be alive.
  - rydre 6y ago
    Hold on to your papers.
  - stephc_int13 6y ago
    There are no alternatives today. And I am perfectly aware that the situation was even worse before the App Store. In fact, by all means, Apple created a viable ecosystem for a huge number of independant developers and that's great. Still, 30% is not justified, and this is not Apple hate, Google and Valve are on the same boat.
    - threeseed 6y ago
      Don't forget about retailers, supermarkets, ecommerce sites etc. If you are shocked that companies take a fee for distribution then wait until you see how things work in the real world.

risyachka 6y ago

I personally don't have a problem with 30% (sure I with it was more like 15% :) - this is their store, they are not forcing you to buy a phone or laptop. If you do then you agree to the rules. My main problem is that they apply their rules to everyone in a different way, just like Google. And they don't even hide it and have written in their TOS that if your app is deleted for a violation, and another app is not it is ok and they decide if to enforce tos or not. If they remove my app for violation - no problem. I can even do their job and send them links to apps that have the same violation, so they can remove them too. Nope, only my app.

burlesona 6y ago
Yeah I came here to post the same. I don't actually think the App Store policies are the problem per se, but rather the fact that you can submit your app and really not know what the result is going to be. Maybe there are edge cases where you know going in that it may require subjective approval, but for a run of the mill commercial / personal app you should be able to easily check if you're compliant and get a very fast approval. Treating each developer and app case by case is just bad faith.
stephc_int13 6y ago
Most retailers have margins in the range of 0.5% to 4.5% 30% is clearly not a reasonable margin...
- doctor_eval 6y ago
  I think placement in the App Store should be considered not in terms of credit card fees but more like placement on the shelves of a supermarket. I don’t know the economics of supermarkets but I do know it’s not just cost+. Sellers have to buy display space, participate in promotions, etc etc - all on top of the cost of the actual goods. I’m too lazy to look it up but I wouldn’t be surprised if the gross margin in the App Store is in the same region as for non essential supermarket goods.
  - arvinsim 6y ago

rising-sky 6y ago

> 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. Schiller gives one more example: an RSS app that reads any feed, but also reads an upgraded feed that could be charged for on a separate site. In both cases, the apps would have functionality when downloaded on the store. Comments by Apple executive, Phil Schiller[1]. Is this not an agreeable solution? It's a separate debate that Apple may be charging exorbitant fees for App Store distribution when there is no competition and one that needs to be addressed, but I think this is a decent workaround, Apple is saying you can put stuff on the App Store and if it has a free version with functionality then we don't charge you for it. Otherwise, we do. [1] https://9to5mac.com/2020/06/18/schiller-hey-app-store-policy/ https://9to5mac.com/2020/06/18/schiller-hey-app-store-policy...

arvinsim 6y ago
So Apple can now dictate the business models of 3rd party apps?
- redwall_hp 6y ago
  I'd go even further: "unrelated third party web services that just happen to supply an app for the phone." I'm pretty sure people independently buy Netflix to use, without even considering their phone. They have a laptop or a set top box or whatever. But because people might want to use it on their phone, Apple thinks they deserve 1/3 of Netflix's revenue?
tdeck 6y ago
I don't see how this is a decent or agreeable workaround. Hey is a paid email service that comes with an @hey.com email address. Either they have to start giving those addresses out for free (a significant change in Hey's business model), or they need to support connecting to an IMAP provider in the app (presumably they don't currently support this, so it would be a significant amount of extra engineering to support non-paying users). Perhaps if they could just throw in a calculator or something as the free version.

ryandrake 6y ago

Unpopular opinion, but if you want to make a game for the PS4, you need to play by Sony's rules or find another platform. Or if you want to write an app that runs on Toyota's head units, you need to play by Toyota's rules, no matter how frustrating they are. Same goes for building an iOS app. You're writing something for an appliance, not for a general purpose computer. I used to be an iOS developer, and that was kind of the faustian bargain we all made: Play by their (sometimes objectionable, sometimes unevenly enforced) rules or GTFO.

stephc_int13 6y ago
The problem is when all the platforms are enforcing the same rules and the same cut-throat taxes.
43920 6y ago
1) iOS devices are effectively general-purpose computers at this point (and the only computing devices owned by a significant number of people). 2) Why shouldn't I be able to write an app for my game console?
- ryandrake 6y ago
  iOS devices are empirically not general purpose computers, since their manufacturer deliberately specifies applications’ allowed and disallowed purposes. > shouldn’t I’m simply describing how things are and not making judgments about how they should be. Apple treats iPhones as appliances that have allowed and disallowed purposes, and rules of the road for app distribution. Every iOS developer who makes a living on the platform knows this is the deal. Going on your blog and acting all surprised that this is the case shows that you either don’t have much experience working with the platform or didn’t do your due diligence before getting into the business.
  - 43920 6y ago
    I guess I'm using a different definition of "general purpose computer" - IMO, it's defined not so much by the device design, but rather what people do with it. It's possible to do almost everything you can do with a normal computer on an iOS device, and for many people, it's their primary or only computing device, which I think makes it sufficiently "general purpose". (There's also the other definition of "general purpose", which is that you can install your own OS on it and have full control over what software you run. I think Apple should allow that too, but that's sort of a different issue).

dontblink 6y ago

There should be an App Store union that boycotts Apple's policies to help to the App developers shift some of the balance of power.

spiderfarmer 6y ago
I think there should be a functioning government that makes sure we all have a healthy economy where monopolies and duopolies are kept in check.

paragraft 6y ago

One aspect that bugs me about the situation that I've not seen mentioned is this disingenuous language Apple employs repeatedly in justifying its right to a percentage take on the basis of the services it's providing in distribution etc. Eg they even describe how Basecamp's been providing apps for free for years on their platform in the email to DHH, with overtones of Basecamp being freeloaders, and they've only been getting by by Apple's forebearance. Yet that argument completely underplays that it's a two-way street - Apple gets enormous value from the aggregate weight of the collective of developers who make native apps for iOS, adding collective value to iOS products. But you never see Apple concede this. I'd even posit that even if all the apps on the App Store were free (at least free from an Apple tax), it would still be worthwhile for Apple to run it, in terms of sustaining the value of the ecosystem for iPhone buyers.

Tehdasi 6y ago

Hmm I wonder if the SomethingAwful reader app is liable to be hit by this. Since it requires a login which you do have to pay for, but the app is actually done by a 3rd paty.

paulajohnson 6y ago

Yet another reason why not to be a sharecropper.

gameswithgo 6y ago

Developers really should stage a revolt on both Google and Apple's mobile phone ecosystems. They have ruined computing for users (locked down systems with no ability to tinker) and make it impossible to have any viable business on their platforms, since they have total control over you, can shut you down at any time without recourse, and retroactively change terms. It is part of a larger trend of evolving business world where small players are doomed.

graton 6y ago
This is not 100% correct for Google. Realistically yes I agree. But you can at least install a 3rd Party app store on Android, as I have done with F-droid. Also I believe Amazon has an App store too. The percentage of people who do that is very small I realize. Now Apple does not offer anyway that I have heard of for people to offer an alternative app store.
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  While you CAN sideload an app on Android, it would still be crippled on modern versions of Android, because it would not be able to receive push notifications. Coupled with the fact that recent versions of Android aggressively offload background apps from memory, many types of applications function with great difficulty. This CAN be overcome by a special app that keeps connection with an alternative push notification server, but it would still be prone to offloading and would have to run a persistent notification. The proper solution would be unlocking notification services on Android devices and allowing to chose alternative push notifications providers. This can also be applied to iOS.
  - namibj 6y ago
    The thing is, though, that Firebase push notifications are deeply integrated with mobile networks. They get special treatment to ensure energy-efficient operation, at the cost of more idle connections hanging in the network infrastructure. Yes, with IPv6 that should/could become much less relevant, but then you loose the traffic-flood-DoS protections you get from CG-NAT.

etchalon 6y ago

I never really get the argument that Apple is somehow some horrible villain here. If you own a store, you sell products at a markup. That's how it works. You buy a widget for 0.50 and you sell it for 1.00. You could say "That retailer is stealing 0.50 from the producer!" but no one says that.

stephc_int13 6y ago
Take a look at the usual margins in the retail market, online or offline. What we're seeing does not look like what should happen in a free market. The mobile market is a duopoly.
- etchalon 6y ago
  Have you ever sold anything at wholesale to a retailer? A 30% cut is not remotely unheard of. Different products obviously have vastly different margins, but 30% isn't outside of reason, depending on the industry. But absolutely, the mobile market is a duopoly. Consumers and developers, who used to have a wider ranger of choices, opted to primarily pick one of two experiences, over and over again, until those were the only viable experiences.
grey-area 6y ago
They're using their near monopoly in one area (app store) to make competitor apps worse and extract income from them. For example kindle is not allowed to sell books (unlike ibooks), hey is not allowed to sell subscriptions, yet other apps are. Classic abusive monopolistic behaviour, the enforcement is completely inconsistent and the fees high enough to put competitors out of business. Apple are not buying products then selling them at a markup, they're forcing their users and suppliers to transact at the company store at a high markup then raking in a huge profit because they own the platform. Your analogy makes no sense.
- etchalon 6y ago
  They're selling a products to their users, sourcing those products from suppliers, and charging a markup for doing so. The problem is that, for whatever reason, people seem to believe they're entitled to access to Apple's users without any restrictions. Which is like demanding Walmart stock your CD "because reasons!"

chuinard 6y ago

I'm ready for the downvotes but I don't think the App Store cut is crazy. They do reduce to 15% if you have long-running subscriptions with your user. Credit cards charge 3% to start. Apple handles distribution, updates, etc. Taking 15% at the end of the day isn't terrible. And hey, they made the super shiny beloved iOS platform too in the first place, not to mention the SDK that makes the apps even possible to build! DHH is just trying to ride cancel culture to get enough people to tweet / complain towards Apple in hopes that they cave.

durpkingOP 6y ago

boohoo

stephc_int13 6y ago

Related: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-18/microsoft-says-antitrust-regulators-need-to-review-app-stores https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-18/microsoft...

bonestormii_ 6y ago

I think the problem is the way they lock in their users by holding their personal data hostage in heir ecosystem. Your music in itunes. Your already-paid apps in the appstore that won't transfer to android. Your ridiculously expensive phone. Your ridiculously expensive headphones that inexplicably won't work on android phone. They own their users. And then they own the store. So then, they own the app developers. It's bullshit. You don't get to own everyone all the time in all those market places just because you sit on a mountain of money. Screw apple.

perl4ever 6y ago
Way back in the 70s somebody was pissed off at Bill Gates for calling hobbyists pirates and told him if he wanted to get paid for software, he should be more creative, maybe sell it along with hardware. At least since then, everyone has been pursuing that line of thought. Just some at times are particularly successful.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
>They own their users. In my experience, Windows owned me. I spent far more time (and money) dealing with malware and low quality hardware running windows than I ever have with the Apple devices I have used. The amortized cost of an Apple device is far lower than equivalent Windows (or Androids), if you include time and stress and probably money too since my family uses iPhones and iPads and MacBook Airs for 5+ years.
- bonestormii_ 6y ago
  My jaw is on the floor. How did you get so much malware and such poor hardware? I love my iphone 7 and my macbook air from 2013--no doubt, they are very good. But I could throw my windows pc in the garbage and rebuy it a couple of times over for the cost of comparable hardware from apple, and I'm just not having the problems you are describing. This is like 6 year old computer that was about $1,300 in parts. It's like, just some asus motherboard with mismatched ram and a video card.... and it works fine. My mom has a 10 year old windows computer that just keeps on spreadsheeting and e-mailing for her... just fine. I just don't understand. I've also had apple hardware that has issues. The notion that it is issue free is just not true.

alberth 6y ago

Am I alone in thinking this isn’t Apple being as bad as others are making them out to be? I’ll explain ... Apple deeply cares about two things, (1) user experience and (2) user privacy. Today, Hey iOS when downloaded IS NOT FUNCTIONAL if you didn’t know to already sign up for the service on their website. That’s a horrible experience and no one likes it. Especially Apple. On Trust/Privacy, Apple is safe guarding users CardOnFile data with all of their advanced security features that they have worked directly with the major card networks that no small developers (or even frankly medium or large developer) could compete with. This benefits the consumer by reducing fraud, and not having your credit card data sitting in some developers data unencrypted. Apple also helps auto update cardonfile data when the card expires so that the developers don’t lose revenue just because of expired cards. As for the 30% fee, why shouldn’t they get a cut? If the App Store was a physical brick and mortar store Like BestBuy, I guarantee you then BestBuy wants to make margin on products they allow in their store. (A) it’s a distribution channel to a consumer you as a developer don’t have, (B) there’s hard costs to putting your product in the App Store “shelf” and (C) Apple is providing all of the easy and secure payment processing on behalf of thr developer. Note: I’m not trying to be combative. I’m just playing devils advocate and pointing out this topic is way more complex than others are making it out to be.

tathougies 6y ago
> As for the 30% fee, why shouldn’t they get a cut? Because it's anti-competitive (Supreme Court agrees...). It's not apple's responsibility to help me safeguard my credit card data.
- alberth 6y ago
  Can you provide a reference to your comment about the “Supreme court agrees”. I don’t know what youre referring too.
  - tathougies 6y ago
    https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/13/supreme-court-rules-against-apple-allowing-an-app-store-antitrust-case-to-proceed/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/13/supreme-court-rules-agains...

hejja 6y ago

imo this is less clear-cut than people are making it out to be. I'm not saying I'm with Apple. In fact I hate platform fees. But if I have a game and say, "my game is subscription based" to circumvent in-app purchases, how is that different? In other words, where do you draw the line

donttakemyapps 6y ago

Throwaway for reasons. I have >10 apps for external clients currently in the App Store that are exactly like Hey (not email clients though), focussed on business+consumer clients, with a login and you have to order outside the store to be able to login. We even reference to that in some of the apps. You can't do anything in the app until you pay for a subscription on the repspective site. The most recent one got approved 2 months ago, and some apps are >2 years old and have received regular updates. The difference may be that they do not have the revenue Basecamp has. In the past when an app got refused, we resubmitted without changes and got approved. It's a shitshow.

taneq 6y ago
The justification seems to be that "without a login it's useless" - could you get around that by having a demo mode that lets you use the app with a dummy account?
raydev 6y ago
I think this is just recent enforcement, and Hey is a bit too late. I've seen some speculation that other non-billion dollar apps will be getting similiar rejections soon.
ddalex 6y ago
Apple said that they allow this for B2B (enterprise) apps.

seek3r00 6y ago

Preface I think that you should always talk about average users. There is no point in talking about technical users that make up a small slice of the market pie. I’m an Apple customer. I’ve an iPhone but I’m still horrified from needing to buy a developer account (which is like 99$) to install (my) apps on my iPhone (only). It would be probably possible for Apple to enable checks for personal apps, executing apps that are signed with the same iCloud account or something like that (doing all the checks on the device, no servers involved). Never mind that macOS is a hot mess for (some) developers, right now. So, yeah, I have some issues with Apple too. On compensation I see a certain similarity between Hey, Spotify, Restocks. They all are (paid) apps trying to take advantage of Apple user base, without compensating Apple for it. Meanwhile, Apple is expected to keep paying for the App Store servers, its curation team and its app approval team. Obviously smartphones are getting better hence (average) users will buy a new phone less often and Apple is expected to keep supporting old devices for 5/6 years and it has to pay the engineers who work on the OSes and the APIs, and the non-engineers that keep the show running. You could argue that Android and Google are better. But Android is not Google’s main business, ads are. Google has built (mostly free) services that generate data about its users, which is then used a bait for advertisers. No one cares if you’re using F-droid instead of the Play Store, Google is still getting its checks from you and your org using Gmail, Analytics, AdSense, YouTube, etc... On side loading Side loading apps (for the average user) is risky and it’s mostly done for three reasons IMO: - cracking apps - accessing apps that are not allowed on the Play Store - escape Google I don’t really have much to say about side loading. I’m too biased against it, so maybe someone else could convince me that it’s a good thing. Conclusion What would happen if Apple allowed apps to use external payment options (like Stripe)? Well, the obvious, no one would use IAP because there would be much cheaper services that are not compensating Apple. Apple is far from perfect: - the App Store approval process is a mess - the communication process is broken (removing old message exchanges, come on...) - they really don’t seem to care about indie developers However, although Apple needs developers to keep running the show, without no Apple there is no iOS, no App Store. It’s a tricky problem to solve.

fossuser 6y ago
I'm not persuaded it's that tricky. Apple makes money from selling hardware devices at a markup, that's their core business and the reason people like them. They're also laying the groundwork for the next computing platform: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5J_6oMMG7Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5J_6oMMG7Y They could force IAP on iOS because it's better for users (track subscription, cancel) - without forcing profit sharing/rent seeking. They could charge some reasonable fee for initially distributing the app or for a dev account (which they already do). Taking a cut of all profits on the platform whether you compete directly (spotify vs. apple music) or not, is greedy. It's also lazy, you're taking money without providing equivalent value. I'd argue companies that focus on doing this kind of thing end up fat, lazy, and hated. (Steve Ballmer's Microsoft).

fxtentacle 6y ago

"Apple Music on Android requires its own payment details to avoid Google 30% cut" and then this. I believe DHH is correct that this is anticompetitive behavior and should be punished the legal way.

WA 6y ago

I have a consumer app that tried to go they Hey route (no signup, no reference to website, no IAPs), but was rejected immediately (2017), despite many other apps that do exactly that. I had to implement IAPs to have it approved.

PeterStuer 6y ago

Fairly telling that these corporations that are themselves tax dodging any way they can and then some on a global scale are so draconian against people trying to dodge their taxe regime.

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

_ph_ 6y ago

The discussions about "Hey" show, the question of the App Store is a complex problem. And I think it is a complex problem, because Apple made the rules far too simple to work, as reality is complex. And because of actions driven by putting the revenue over customer service. Customer in this context means both the customers using the app store and the developers selling on the app store. The App Store rules cover many aspects, which should not be mixed in my eyes. First: security. Reviewing apps for security is a great feature. Having a place to get reviewed apps is gread for the end customer. But many rules, like the ones about in-app purchases, have little or nothing to do with security. About curation: yes, it is a great feature, if an App Store is curated and the quality of apps is ensured. And yes, offering in-app purchases is great for the customer, as it is safe and anonymous. Yet, Apple does little to curate all the freemium games, which are pretty trivial apps which allow you to spend enourmeous amounts of money on a game. Spending in excess of $100 for a silly simple game should be considered as profiteering if not outright fraudulent. But this seems to be ok in the App Store as long as you pay your 30%... Besides that Apple obviously often does a bad job when curating the App Store, there are many examples, like "Hey", that show, that the overly simplistic App Store rules far too often just don't fit all business models. Therefore, there should be more differentiation in the level of services offered by Apple to the developers and the developers be able to choose the service model with its associated costs, which fits them best. I think Hey profits a lot from being in the App Store, even from offering in-App purchases, as this is very customer-friendly, both from a convenience and security point. And of course, Apple is entitled to get a share of the profit Hey makes from being on the App store. But currently Apple doesn't charge on the profit, but on the gross revenue, which is difficult for a lot companies. And this in a world, where to do business basically means, that you have to offer an app. As an example, but it is not as far fetched as it may sound, consider Tesla. Tesla is a company, which sells their product via the web. They also offer an App, which is basically required to use their product - for example arranging service appointments is done via apps. Also for operating the car, the app is extremely useful. Should Apple now require Tesla to offer in-app purchases to the customers? Yes, it would be extremely convenient to be able to buy your car in the app, as it is done on the web otherwise. But obviously, Tesla couldn't afford the 30% share of the car price. Does this give Apple the right to ban the Tesla app from the App Store with all consequences? If you think about it, this case isn't so much more far-fetched than the case of Hey.

nico_h 6y ago

I think the other thing that sticks out is the prohibition for developer to charge different price in and out of the app store (seems to be somewhat relaxed, for example expressVPN, or maybe the trick is to not offer the exact same bundle?) and the related prohibition to mention the price difference when subscribing outside the app store. If apple was so confident in the value of the app store they would let the consumer make the choice instead of preventing even a hint of competition. e.g.: Tap here to subscribe right now for $X (monitor your subscription in the app store app). Subscribe on our site for $(.7*X) by entering your credit card information. Then let apple adjust the numbers until they have the same amount of signups as before, that would let the customer decide on the value of the "Apple Convenience Tax" instead of preventing information disclosure.