7 ms·

Apple sends a letter to Hey: Change your app or get out of the App Store

106 points by peterstensmyr 6y ago

wereHamster 6y ago
Would it be allowed under the App Store guidelines to offer IAP, but then give customers who purchase the service through the website 30% cashback? The price would be the same in both places, you'd be purchasing the exact same service. But a certain group of customers would get a 'loyalty bonus'…
- mbdesign 6y ago
  I'm going to assume that Apple will do everything to maintain their cut. Even if what you said would be possible, I would expect Apple to update their terms of service to abolish it.
- codegladiator 6y ago
  > First, if an app is a way to exclusively consume content purchased elsewhere, like songs or movies or podcasts, they don't have to have in-app purchases So that might just work, you consume a coupon on the app ? Or not even that, purchase just associated with account
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- propelol 6y ago
  Or do as Tinder, and charge 30% more in the app compared to their prices on tinder.com
  - lanna 6y ago
    You have to raise the price by 43%: 1.43 * 0.7 = 1.00
    - Hamuko 6y ago
      And most importantly, you're not actually allowed to communicate what the actual price of the service is. So any customer who doesn't look up the pricing on their website will think that it's $142 a year, not $99 a year.
  - intothemild 6y ago
    You can do this.. but you cannot say "we charge you 30% more here, but if you signup over there, it's regular price" Apple saying "it's giving the users more options" is total BS.. it's all about getting their 30%, because if you play by their rules, and give the customer more knowledge that you're being forced to charge extra because of this payment option.. then Oh noes. A great example outside the app store is some credit cards charge much more than the others, so some stores charge you that on top. "You want to use X card, sorry but there's a surcharge for that card.. you could use something else.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Most likely according to Guideline 3.1.3(b). The biggest problem with the app is that iOS only users can't actually create an account inside the app. It's perfectly fine to use a windows computer to create a paid account and then use that same account in iOS but since it's not possible to create a paid account on iOS and then use it on a windows pc it's violating the guidelines.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    Because Apple forbids you from even describing how you can sign up outside Apple. Much less provide a link.
villgax 6y ago
> We understand that Basecamp has developed a number of apps and many subsequent versions for the App Store for many years, and that the App Store has distributed millions of these apps to iOS users. These apps do not offer in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years. They literally have paid 8 years of Developer Program fees for supporting the AppStore.
- wlll 6y ago
  There is also the missing other side to this argument, and that's without third part apps Apple couldn't sell it's phones that it surely makes a decent amount of money on. Without third-party app authors Apple couldn't sell it's phones. Perhaps Apple should be paying them?
- chriswphoto 6y ago
  Seems like the best we can hope for is an EU antitrust ruling that reigns in Apple’s anticompetitive behavior here.
  - z3t4 6y ago
    Almost everyone in the world have a smartphone. Having only two options (iOS or Android) to choose between in such a big market is a joke. Google or Apple will just continue to buy out the competition to make sure they are the only option.
- helsinkiandrew 6y ago
  It's a different matter whether 30% is a valid cut for Apple to make on Hey In App subscriptions. But $2,400 (8*$300/year?) for the delivery and update, notifications and Siri integration etc to millions of apps/devices sounds a pretty good deal.
  - stephenr 6y ago
    Where do you get $300 from? The developer program is $99/year regardless of how many apps you have.
slhck 6y ago
"These apps do not offer in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years." This is pretty grotesque coming from a trillion-dollar company that anyway already charges developers a yearly fee.
- officemonkey 6y ago
  "We didn't get our cut" should only apply if they add value. What value does the App Store provide Hey?
  - corobo 6y ago
    Access to 20 billion unjailbroken iPhones
    - gokhan 6y ago
      A competing app store, if allowed, would do equally well
    - kjakm 6y ago
      Take away those apps and those iPhone's become useless bricks. Apps + developers add huge value to the platform.
      - threeseed 6y ago
        I think you are vastly overstating the importance of apps. Apple could easily remove the App Store tomorrow, sign deals with a dozen or so companies e.g. Facebook, Netflix, Twitter, Snap, Google, Microsoft etc and they would still sell devices.
        kjakm 6y ago
        I think if you think back to 2007/8 and people had the choice of Android with millions of apps and a higher priced iOS ecosystem which only has some high profile apps so few people would choose iOS that it would quickly become a waste of money for FB/Twitter/MS to build their apps for it and it would die.
hyko 6y ago
Apple’s position is clear and legal, and it’s how the economy works including the proposed hey.com business model. There’s no antitrust violation here, so pay your fees or go somewhere else. Apple don’t owe hey.com a place in the App store, just like hey.com doesn’t owe me a free email address @hey.com.
- Okkef 6y ago
  I wish I could downvote you. What apple is doing is much worse than microsoft ever did, and they deserve to get a big antitrust lawsuit against them. Just because their own rules say 'everybody owes us money' doesn't mean that it's legal.
  - hyko 6y ago
    These aren’t Apple’s rules–they’re ours. It’s the parameters of a free marketplace and flows from the idea of legal ownership of property. Apple has a minority share of the smartphone market, so antitrust does not apply. Antitrust a specific remedy to prevent monopolistic abuses. If I build a high end hotel and the fee is $10,000 a night to stay there, you can’t apply to the Supreme Court to have your bill reduced. It’s my hotel and I can set the price to whatever I damn well please because it’s a free market.
    - take_a_breath 6y ago
      This analogy makes no sense. It’s not a business to consumer issue. The problem is Apple running their own marketplace and inconsistently applying the rules they have created for that marketplace. If the hotel opened a food court and treated the vendors like this, it might be an apt analogy.
      - hyko 6y ago
        Well, let’s use the food court analogy then: whoever owns the food court is permitted by law to set whatever rental prices they choose for their tenants (provided they aren’t discriminating against people based on certain characteristics). They don’t have to be consistent, because the food court is their property and they have very wide discretion over how it is used. Fair? No. Legal? Yes!
detaro 6y ago
previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23569065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23569065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23568095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23568095
zxcb1 6y ago
Apple demands that taxes are paid and laws are adhered to in their kingdom of apps. Meanwhile, they are tax evaders themselves.
- vidanay 6y ago
  It's good to be the King!
- cwhiz 6y ago
  Corporate taxes are stupid, anyway. Companies just evade them and hold money elsewhere until the next repatriation holiday. Corporate taxes also prevent us from treating investment income as ordinary income. Just all around stupid.
fierarul 6y ago
Maybe the pandemic finally offers enough motivation for EU and US to make a strong decision about this. The (smart)phone market, for many people the only computing device they own, is utterly dominated by 2 monopolies under Apple and Google. The CEOs should get a medal and all the honours for providing society this good platforms then promptly forced to allow separate AppStores on equal footing.
- qeternity 6y ago
  > 2 monopolies Uh... Also, monopoly has a very specific definition. It does not mean "company with large marketshare".
  - meditative 6y ago
    Oligopoly that monopolises the market
    - qeternity 6y ago
      Again, still not a monopoly. The fact that most phones are iOS or Android just means those are the two most popular products in the market. It does not make it monopolistic.
  - fierarul 6y ago
    You are trying hard not to understand the message. The laws change to fit what people consider right. What Apple is doing might be almost legal but it is not right and laws can be written to spell this out for them and others. Computing should be declared a human right and selling mass produced general purpose computers without allowing anybody to deploy any desired software on that computer should be illegal.
    - qeternity 6y ago
      You may not like Apple, but I think it’s quite a leap of faith to declare computing a “human right”. You want an experience with an Apple product that Apple doesn’t provide, whether you agree with it or not. Where do we draw the line? Should we force all vegan restaurants to serve meat? Surely if computing is a human right, then food is as well and thus I’m entitled to the experience I want as a result. Apple would argue, and rightfully so, most of their customers want a walled garden. People don’t want to have to worry about malware, scams, etc. Why should they be deprived of offering this experience when you have plenty of other choices for unconstrained computing.
snarf21 6y ago
It seems like we soon see movement on this issue given the EU antitrust and other social unrest. People are tired of things being not only unfair but not even remotely reasonable. It is laughable that Apple Music on Android doesn't use the built in IAP but forces you to pay via Apple. This will come back to haunt them. It doesn't matter that the ToS don't forbid this but in civil suits, it doesn't give them a leg to stand on. They are doing the exact thing they argue would prevent them from making any revenue if they changed their policy. If Apple was smart they would lower their percentage and move on. Better to pick the number than have it forced on you.
- rydre 6y ago
  The ego is going to kill future growth of the company. Investors, beware.
  - Razengan 6y ago
    Apple Becomes First U.S. Company to Hit $1.5 Trillion in Market Value: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/10/apple-1-5-trillion-market-capitalization/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/10/apple-1-5-trillion-mark... Investors have nothing to worry about, certainly not a company trying to make more money for them. :)
- raverbashing 6y ago
  > If Apple was smart they would lower their percentage and move on Smart and Apple on the same phrase has becoming less common lately. The anti-trust action seems to not be dissuading them from their actions.
- horsawlarway 6y ago
  If the regulation is smart (sometimes the EU does ok with tech regulation, sometimes they fail miserably) then it's not about picking a number. The number is never the issue. The issue is that apple has artificially blocked any competing channels from distributing to iOS. I don't believe they should be allowed to have a legal monopoly on app distribution. In fact, I'd go as far as the ruling for IE with Microsoft around basically the same issue but for web apps - Not only are you not allowed a legal monopoly on app distribution, you MUST ask the user which app distribution methods they'd like to enable.
rvz 6y ago
Maybe they should follow what Netflix is doing, since they don't have in-app purchases in iOS which is why they don't allow registrations at all and force you to sign up on the web. Not sure about Netflix's Android app though, but Google has sort of done this to Epic Games but only allowing logins and no registrations + card checks might bypass the Apple 30% tax.
- ijpsud 6y ago
  Are you sure Netflix is able to do this (genuine question)? According to this[0] article, Apple says that apps that target consumers (as opposed to businesses) must allow the user to sign up for the service from within the app: > Apple allows these kinds of client apps — where you can't sign up, only sign in — for business services but not consumer products. That's why Basecamp, which companies typically pay for, is allowed on the App Store when Hey, which users pay for, isn't. Anyone who purchased Hey from elsewhere could access it on iOS as usual, the company said, but the app must have a way for users to sign up and pay through Apple's infrastructure. [0] https://www.protocol.com/hey-email-app-store-rejection https://www.protocol.com/hey-email-app-store-rejection
- misnome 6y ago
  It looks like this is exactly what they are doing, and what Apple is complaining about?
- gecko 6y ago
  They did—or at least, are trying to. The issue is Apple is saying, based on unwritten rules, that Netflix is allowed to do it, while Hey isn’t. And that’s the crux of the problem
  - philistine 6y ago
    I’m looking forward to Apple having to argue in front of a legislative body why streaming services are given a different treatment than any other software.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Read the article and Guideline 3.1.3(a). The rules aren't unwritten. Stop making things up.
philliphaydon 6y ago
If the app was like $1 or $2 on the app store just to avoid this headache, I would pay it.
- spartas 6y ago
  So would everyone else. Part of the problem is that hey is still in invite-only, and everyone who is able would just pay $1 or $2 to get around the invitation list.
  - philliphaydon 6y ago
    Wish there wasn't a stupid invite list so I can use it now instead of waiting :/
    - spartas 6y ago
      Ditto :/
dustinmoris 6y ago
I'm probably in the minority with this view, but I do think that Apple's response makes 100% sense and is fair and reasonable. - I don't like how everyone claims they want a 30% cut. That is factually not quite true. It is 30% for non subs, which I think is fair. If I want to sell a product on a specific distribution channel then the cut should represent the possible reach and sales opportunity. In the case of subs it's only 15%. This is quite different than 30%. 30% is only for the first 12 months and for a sub which is paid annually this is nothing. Given that the first 12 months are very crucial in gaining critical mass I think 30% is fair and later it is really only 15%. - I have huge respect for DHH, but he criticises that Apple has published their response to journalists, which is a bit rich given that he started this "dog fight" in the public - The apps to which DHH compares Hey with are very different in nature and all the mail apps he constantly mentions are also different in nature. They all implement the suggestions which Apple has suggested in their response, so it's really Hey who wants to be treated with different rules because DHH thinks his online status can bully Apple into giving in? Not sure if that is right - Also I think it is possible to do both. You can disagree with the rules and fight them in a civil way in court, whilst also temporarily comply with the rules like everyone else to get your app public. This approach of not wanting to play by the rules, put them on fire and still publish an app whilst everything is burning seems like a weird strategy to me. Slightly unnecessarily aggressive in tone.
- take_a_breath 6y ago
  ==Given that the first 12 months are very crucial in gaining critical mass I think 30% is fair and later it is really only 15%.== It’s a lot harder to gain critical mass when you are paying 30% directly to Apple, no? == You can disagree with the rules and fight them in a civil way in court, whilst also temporarily comply with the rules like everyone else to get your app public.== Make less money today while you fight the largest company in the history of earth in court. Meanwhile, Apple will just built a competing product and embed it in iOS (see: AppleTV). The rules seem to change while the game has already started.
- imtringued 6y ago
  I absolutely despise Apple and will never own an iPhone but what they did here is perfectly reasonable. Apple doesn't force users to use in-app purchases. It only forces developers (not users) to provide the option of purchasing access to services directly within the app. This isn't eliminating any choices for users and Apple isn't inserting itself between completely unrelated businesses to extend their reach beyond the Apple ecosystem.
hombre_fatal 6y ago
Finally a great breakdown of the issue and a fair look into what both sides, namely Apple, are trying to do here. > That, Apple said, is not what Hey is. Hey is a consumer app, paid for by users. And Apple takes issue with the idea that when one of those prospective users downloads the app, there's nothing they can do with it — they can't sign up, they can't pay, they have to go somewhere else before they can use the app. Apple doesn't like apps like that, at least when it feels they should be more accessible to their intended audience.
- IncRnd 6y ago
  If someone were to look at the reviews on the App Store, they would realize that users are extremely happy with the Hey app, despite how Apple attempts to portray the situation.
- saysjonathan 6y ago
  The Hey onboarding today is tied to a website-driven invite and signup process. While that _could_ be a bad customer experience through some lens, what percentage of users following this flow are or will be downloading this app prior to signing up? In a larger sense, Apple seems to be saying that, at least for consumer apps, they have an expected user flow from launch/beta through purchase. That flow makes Apple the primary channel and pipeline. If you have a multi-channel app (web + app, in this case), they want the main experience through the app regardless of business model or context. This makes the customer experience argument seem like misdirection.
dahdum 6y ago
Basecamp obviously knew this would go down like this. The cynic in me thinks this controversy was planned from the beginning as a PR / marketing exercise.
- kjakm 6y ago
  I've seen this comment all over the place and I genuinely can't believe people think this. Apple accepted v1.0 of the app. They're rejecting v1.0.1 which just contains some bug fixes. How could anybody predict this? It's also going to damage their long term relationship with Apple (an important partner) and if they lose this fight their entire product is in danger as being unable to access an email service on one of the most popular phones is going to be unsustainable for Hey.
  - dahdum 6y ago
    Apple's stance on IAP isn't unknown, Spotify fought them and eventually just started charging a 30% premium on iOS subscriptions. Hey could do the same thing and likely will, but a public fight in the meantime is generating buzz. They were probably surprised they got 1.0 approved, I certainly would have been. Apple says they made a mistake approving it, which is not unheard of, and them clearly identified the guidelines they're breaking. Basecamp is full of smart and prominent people who know what they're doing. I can't believe they didn't predict or plan for this scenario when it's one of the most obvious to me.
- hoppla 6y ago
  Summer intern project
simion314 6y ago
Would it be more fair that - developers paid a hosting subscription for their app - pay for bandwidth used by the app downloads - pay for each update review - optional pay for promotion - Apple would not block legal content, just put it under a new category of stuff Apple disaproves but is legal. This would fix a part for the issues with stores, Apple can't say that they are hosting your app for free anymore or that they provide you bandwidth. The disadvantage I see is that small apps will have to pay a the yearly subscriptions but if the price is fair I see it similar as you pay for a domain and webhosting. Apple will have to find a new way to make money though, like maybe have better services instead of crippling competition, have better dev tools and hardware. Imagine there are only 2 companies that offer web hosting , and they will take 30% of your money (not profit but total) and on top of that they can reject your content if they don't like it.
- oauea 6y ago
  No, that would be absolutely absurd. The only thing that would be fair is for Apple and Google to allow third party stores without restricting them. I'll just put an .apk or .ipa file on my website and be done with these ridiculous stores. That's what's fair.
- bartread 6y ago
  You understand that this would kill free apps, and strongly disincentivize many startups and other small shops from developing for the app store? This, in turn, would devalue the entire iOS ecosystem and likely hurt Apple's revenue.
  - simion314 6y ago
    Are there "free" apps? I mean you already pay for a dev account 100$ , so say i am an open source project, I already have to pay for dev account, for a Mac device so there is no free stuff. Apple could be kind and offer free hosting for open source projects and if someone affords to pay for a doman and webhosting to have their installer hosted there they could also pay the same amount for hosting on Apple servers.
- IncRnd 6y ago
drchaim 6y ago
I'm probably missing something, but can't Hey just make subscriptions in their page and let the App from free in the App Store? Is the same as gmail, I can pay for a Google Suite, but the app is freely distributed in stores. Basecamp should have great products (I've never used them), but it seems they are using this as a marketing strategy.
- libertine 6y ago
  Didn't apple pull something similar with Spotify, that tried to direct users to their page for subscription and Apple warned/suspended them for doing so? Edit: Confirmed. >Spotify’s complaint against Apple is a good example(1)(2)(3). Apple charges Spotify a 30% fee to use the App Store(4) and limits how it can communicate with its users. Apple is the owner of the iOS platform and the App Store and is a direct competitor of Spotify(5). source: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2019-002996_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2019-00299...
- simonh 6y ago
  >I'm probably missing something, but can't Hey just make subscriptions in their page and let the App from free in the App Store? That is exactly what they are doing at the moment. Apple has decided to invent a new requirement that this approach is only valid for business applications, and consumer client apps must offer in-app signup and purchase. I'm generally pro-Apple on these issues. It's their store running on their products on their infrastructure. However in this case I don't believe Hey is violating the current stated and published app store rules. Apple's decision in this case seems capricious and arbitrary, and more than a little hypocritical.
jw1224 6y ago
Honestly, Apple's response is actually pretty reasonable, all things considered. Read the full letter — it was clear, fair, and professional — despite coming off the back of a lot of bad press. I see plenty of comments are focussing on this quote, re their Basecamp apps: > These apps do not offer in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years Apple have (freely) provided Basecamp a platform to grow their business via the App Store, whilst giving Apple (effectively) nothing in return. Now that Basecamp want to grow their revenue further (at Apple's expense), AND they are breaching the rules (whether you agree with them or not) — I don't blame Apple for pressing the brakes. Especially not after all the negative press this whole debacle has brought them.
- CJKinni 6y ago
  > Apple have (freely) provided Basecamp a platform to grow their business via the App Store, whilst giving Apple (effectively) nothing in return. I've purchased an expensive phone mainly so that I can have access to a high quality ecosystem of apps. Apps like Basecamp and Hey are part of that for me. Apple gains so much from the breadth of high quality apps on the app store, including free apps. If they begin to see free apps as giving them effectively nothing, I see that as an indication that they no longer value the reasons I go to them as an iOS user.
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  Once, phone makers thought that apps were a benefit to their phone, not a cost.
- jbrooksuk 6y ago
  > Apple have (freely) provided Basecamp a platform to grow their business via the App Store, whilst giving Apple (effectively) nothing in return. It's not free though, is it? You have to pay $99 a year, and purchase Apple hardware to develop and test software for their platforms. Basecamp, who hire 50+ people most likely all run Apple hardware, so that's tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars to Apple over the years.
  - 6y ago
grey-area 6y ago
It seems any company becomes evil when it gets large enough.
Traster 6y ago
Apple should just offer Hey the option of providing the Hey app without the 30% cut, but negotiate how much Hey wants to pay for use of Apple's SDKs.
- IncRnd 6y ago
  Apple should negotiate with all developers as to how much they want to pay developers for offering content on their devices.
Uhrheber 6y ago
Do they also ban apps that show public transport schedules, because you can't buy tickets through them?
- detaro 6y ago
  That's really a nonsensical example. An app not having a feature to pay for something is very different from an app requiring to buy something elsewhere.
  - hanselot 6y ago
    So requiring an app to have a feature would then be necessary for all those other applications.
cannam 6y ago
A curious thought experiment here is: what would the situation be in the case of a hypothetical third-party app that provided access to your Hey email? (I mean via some API that Hey offered - I think they don't actually offer one, but it's a hypothetical.) You would obviously still need a paid Hey account to use such an app, but there would be no way for the app's providers to enable you to sign up for one using Apple IAP. What then?
hanselot 6y ago
Your tech cults will all die one by one as the big players fall on their own swords. A walled garden is not very resistant to disease.
imron 6y ago
> The HEY Email app is marketed as an email app on the App Store, but when users download your app, it does not work. Users cannot use the app to access email or perform any useful function until after they go to the Basecamp website for Hey Email and purchase a license to use the HEY Email app. The Fastmail email app works exactly the same way and is available on the app store without issue. Seems like a pretty arbitrary decision here.
gambiting 6y ago
While obviously what Apple is doing is crap, why not just increase their in-app prices only on iOS? That's what Marvel have been doing with their comics. A comic that through their website costs £3, on the Android reader costs £3.29 and on their iOS reader costs £3.49. I always just buy them online and immediately download to my ipad without paying the Apple premium. Yes, it sucks - but it seems like a relatively easy way out.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  ...because raising the price also reduces demand. This is the nature of the supply-demand curve. So you still end up with less revenues. Imagine that Hey found the ideal price point on the supply-demand curve. When you factor in Apple's fee - the new optimal price point on the curve may shift higher, but your net revenues will still be lower.
projektfu 6y ago
Apple’s policy really degrades the experience of apps on their platform, such as Kindle.
davidg109 6y ago
I’m on Apple’s side on this one. They’ve made Hey’s choice simple: change it so it’s compatible for people to use their mainstream email services (no $ involved), or make it subscription out of the box. Currently you need some dumb invite-only code. I actually feel misled by Hey’s comments pointing out that Netflix, etc. require a subscription to make the app useful. It wasn’t until I little additional digging revealed that the main difference you can order it straight away, and Apple still charges them the 30% fee. To get around this, Netflix charges for in-app or you can order cheaper directly from their site. I don’t believe Apple’s store T&C’s indicate Netflix is violating anything through this model. Really this is about how much is too much for Apple’s fee structure. I suspect regulators may try to force Apple to allow other App Stores (like Android) but then the usual problems will surface re: security, etc.
- spartas 6y ago
  I'm with HEY on this issue. As of a few months ago, Netflix abandoned in-app purchases entirely on Apple platforms. Try it yourself: sign out of your Netflix account on iOS and try and create a new account. There is no option to pay for a Netflix subscription within the app on iOS. It just isn't there. Fastmail is another app already on the App store that requires an account (but has no option to sign up within the app itself). Salesforce Inbox and GMail are two other email apps currently on the App store that do not allow the user to sign up within the app itself. (An aside about Gmail: I'm now receiving almost-daily emails from Google > Your Gmail is full. Get more storage now with a Google One membership. Plans start at $1.99 a month. How much of that money do you think Apple would like to get? How much of that money goes to Apple? None. That is not implemented as an in-app purchase. )
  - davidg109 6y ago
    I’m still seeing in-app purchases as an option via App Store for Netflix. I can’t comment on the other apps you mentioned except for Gmail. And here’s where I disagree with you. Gmail is still functional without paying anything. You don’t hit a paywall immediately after downloading. The app provides immediate functionality to users. If Google decided to force subscription-only, that’s when Apple would be saying you need to either open it up, or use our in-app subscription service. Google’s upsell is not a requirement to use Gmail’s basic functionality. The app must provide immediately functionality after downloading. Guess how much functionality the Hey app I downloaded is providing to me right now? Zero. Because I need an “invite-only” code.
aaanotherhnfolk 6y ago
Apple forces Hey's app in front of unsuspecting users with App Store promotions. If the app doesn't provide any value to a random person who comes across it in the App Store, that doesn't mean it should be banned from the App Store. That means it should be banned from promotion in the App Store. Hey should still be able to link its users directly to the App Store entry and otherwise make it unlisted in the App Store. Apple can find a creative way to tax this if they wanted, but what is the yearly developer fee for if not a fee for distribution and security/compliance certifications? Apple needs to stop conflating distribution on their platform with promotion on their platform. Not every app needs both. 30% cut only makes sense in a publishing deal where Apple promotes the product in the storefront.
myroslambda 6y ago
I can offer some opinion as developer in a small indie game company (shameless self-promotion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23565739 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23565739). Supporting iOS is super hard for us. The Apple market is heavily controlled and supervised. We have had apps rejected because we included links to the Android equivalent in the description (same price, so no big reason to switch platforms when you are already on our iTunes page, and no way anyone can install an Android app on an iPhone anyway). Apple used to offer a more or less standard set of phones, resolutions, and architecture. But that has diversified more in the last years. For Android and Linux, we have it much easier to build tools, to handle dependencies, and generally to deploy. Actually, all development happens on Linux, simply because it's a much better and more comfortable platform. When we need to deploy for iOS, we boot the mac computer (which we had to pay for), re-compile the game, try it on the iPhone (which we also had to pay for), upload, and turn it off. Additionally, and I don't have all the details on this myself, Google apparently has also made it much easier for us than Apple to operate when it comes to taxes and banking. We normally have to sell thousands of units per month to "make it" (and we don't). For Android, the fees are low enough to justify keeping things open even if we don't sell much one month. In a wider perspective, we operate in a market with lots of apps and games being offered for free, really high fees and standards set by the major stores, and continuous pressure from the community, our competitors (of course!) and ourselves to release more of our work as open source. Essentially, the combination is crushing, and Apple's move does not help :( For what is worth, we recently launched "safe2play" (https://keera.co.uk/2020/06/17/safe2play-caring-for-privacy-in-an-interconnected-world/ https://keera.co.uk/2020/06/17/safe2play-caring-for-privacy-...), which is an idea meant to make both people safer and the pricing model more transparent. It would probably align with Apple's desires better too, although that's an unintended side-effect.
jaclaz 6y ago
Generically speaking, I thought that the promise of the Internet was to have more (and more direct) access to resources. When it comes to e-commerce or e-subscriptions that should have meant the end of the middlemen, the products or contents/whatever are delivered directly from the author/producer/supplier to the end user, cutting costs.

106 points by peterstensmyr 6y ago

Would it be allowed under the App Store guidelines to offer IAP, but then give customers who purchase the service through the website 30% cashback? The price would be the same in both places, you'd be purchasing the exact same service. But a certain group of customers would get a 'loyalty bonus'…

mbdesign 6y ago
I'm going to assume that Apple will do everything to maintain their cut. Even if what you said would be possible, I would expect Apple to update their terms of service to abolish it.
codegladiator 6y ago
> First, if an app is a way to exclusively consume content purchased elsewhere, like songs or movies or podcasts, they don't have to have in-app purchases So that might just work, you consume a coupon on the app ? Or not even that, purchase just associated with account
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
propelol 6y ago
Or do as Tinder, and charge 30% more in the app compared to their prices on tinder.com
- lanna 6y ago
  You have to raise the price by 43%: 1.43 * 0.7 = 1.00
  - Hamuko 6y ago
    And most importantly, you're not actually allowed to communicate what the actual price of the service is. So any customer who doesn't look up the pricing on their website will think that it's $142 a year, not $99 a year.
- intothemild 6y ago
  You can do this.. but you cannot say "we charge you 30% more here, but if you signup over there, it's regular price" Apple saying "it's giving the users more options" is total BS.. it's all about getting their 30%, because if you play by their rules, and give the customer more knowledge that you're being forced to charge extra because of this payment option.. then Oh noes. A great example outside the app store is some credit cards charge much more than the others, so some stores charge you that on top. "You want to use X card, sorry but there's a surcharge for that card.. you could use something else.
imtringued 6y ago
Most likely according to Guideline 3.1.3(b). The biggest problem with the app is that iOS only users can't actually create an account inside the app. It's perfectly fine to use a windows computer to create a paid account and then use that same account in iOS but since it's not possible to create a paid account on iOS and then use it on a windows pc it's violating the guidelines.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  Because Apple forbids you from even describing how you can sign up outside Apple. Much less provide a link.

villgax 6y ago

> We understand that Basecamp has developed a number of apps and many subsequent versions for the App Store for many years, and that the App Store has distributed millions of these apps to iOS users. These apps do not offer in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years. They literally have paid 8 years of Developer Program fees for supporting the AppStore.

wlll 6y ago
There is also the missing other side to this argument, and that's without third part apps Apple couldn't sell it's phones that it surely makes a decent amount of money on. Without third-party app authors Apple couldn't sell it's phones. Perhaps Apple should be paying them?
chriswphoto 6y ago
Seems like the best we can hope for is an EU antitrust ruling that reigns in Apple’s anticompetitive behavior here.
- z3t4 6y ago
  Almost everyone in the world have a smartphone. Having only two options (iOS or Android) to choose between in such a big market is a joke. Google or Apple will just continue to buy out the competition to make sure they are the only option.
helsinkiandrew 6y ago
It's a different matter whether 30% is a valid cut for Apple to make on Hey In App subscriptions. But $2,400 (8*$300/year?) for the delivery and update, notifications and Siri integration etc to millions of apps/devices sounds a pretty good deal.
- stephenr 6y ago
  Where do you get $300 from? The developer program is $99/year regardless of how many apps you have.

slhck 6y ago

"These apps do not offer in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years." This is pretty grotesque coming from a trillion-dollar company that anyway already charges developers a yearly fee.

officemonkey 6y ago
"We didn't get our cut" should only apply if they add value. What value does the App Store provide Hey?
- corobo 6y ago
  Access to 20 billion unjailbroken iPhones
  - gokhan 6y ago
    A competing app store, if allowed, would do equally well
  - kjakm 6y ago
    Take away those apps and those iPhone's become useless bricks. Apps + developers add huge value to the platform.
    - threeseed 6y ago
      I think you are vastly overstating the importance of apps. Apple could easily remove the App Store tomorrow, sign deals with a dozen or so companies e.g. Facebook, Netflix, Twitter, Snap, Google, Microsoft etc and they would still sell devices.
      - kjakm 6y ago
        I think if you think back to 2007/8 and people had the choice of Android with millions of apps and a higher priced iOS ecosystem which only has some high profile apps so few people would choose iOS that it would quickly become a waste of money for FB/Twitter/MS to build their apps for it and it would die.

hyko 6y ago

Apple’s position is clear and legal, and it’s how the economy works including the proposed hey.com business model. There’s no antitrust violation here, so pay your fees or go somewhere else. Apple don’t owe hey.com a place in the App store, just like hey.com doesn’t owe me a free email address @hey.com.

Okkef 6y ago
I wish I could downvote you. What apple is doing is much worse than microsoft ever did, and they deserve to get a big antitrust lawsuit against them. Just because their own rules say 'everybody owes us money' doesn't mean that it's legal.
- hyko 6y ago
  These aren’t Apple’s rules–they’re ours. It’s the parameters of a free marketplace and flows from the idea of legal ownership of property. Apple has a minority share of the smartphone market, so antitrust does not apply. Antitrust a specific remedy to prevent monopolistic abuses. If I build a high end hotel and the fee is $10,000 a night to stay there, you can’t apply to the Supreme Court to have your bill reduced. It’s my hotel and I can set the price to whatever I damn well please because it’s a free market.
  - take_a_breath 6y ago
    This analogy makes no sense. It’s not a business to consumer issue. The problem is Apple running their own marketplace and inconsistently applying the rules they have created for that marketplace. If the hotel opened a food court and treated the vendors like this, it might be an apt analogy.
    - hyko 6y ago
      Well, let’s use the food court analogy then: whoever owns the food court is permitted by law to set whatever rental prices they choose for their tenants (provided they aren’t discriminating against people based on certain characteristics). They don’t have to be consistent, because the food court is their property and they have very wide discretion over how it is used. Fair? No. Legal? Yes!

detaro 6y ago

previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23569065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23569065 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23568095 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23568095

zxcb1 6y ago

Apple demands that taxes are paid and laws are adhered to in their kingdom of apps. Meanwhile, they are tax evaders themselves.

vidanay 6y ago
It's good to be the King!
cwhiz 6y ago
Corporate taxes are stupid, anyway. Companies just evade them and hold money elsewhere until the next repatriation holiday. Corporate taxes also prevent us from treating investment income as ordinary income. Just all around stupid.

fierarul 6y ago

Maybe the pandemic finally offers enough motivation for EU and US to make a strong decision about this. The (smart)phone market, for many people the only computing device they own, is utterly dominated by 2 monopolies under Apple and Google. The CEOs should get a medal and all the honours for providing society this good platforms then promptly forced to allow separate AppStores on equal footing.

qeternity 6y ago
> 2 monopolies Uh... Also, monopoly has a very specific definition. It does not mean "company with large marketshare".
- meditative 6y ago
  Oligopoly that monopolises the market
  - qeternity 6y ago
    Again, still not a monopoly. The fact that most phones are iOS or Android just means those are the two most popular products in the market. It does not make it monopolistic.
- fierarul 6y ago
  You are trying hard not to understand the message. The laws change to fit what people consider right. What Apple is doing might be almost legal but it is not right and laws can be written to spell this out for them and others. Computing should be declared a human right and selling mass produced general purpose computers without allowing anybody to deploy any desired software on that computer should be illegal.
  - qeternity 6y ago
    You may not like Apple, but I think it’s quite a leap of faith to declare computing a “human right”. You want an experience with an Apple product that Apple doesn’t provide, whether you agree with it or not. Where do we draw the line? Should we force all vegan restaurants to serve meat? Surely if computing is a human right, then food is as well and thus I’m entitled to the experience I want as a result. Apple would argue, and rightfully so, most of their customers want a walled garden. People don’t want to have to worry about malware, scams, etc. Why should they be deprived of offering this experience when you have plenty of other choices for unconstrained computing.

snarf21 6y ago

It seems like we soon see movement on this issue given the EU antitrust and other social unrest. People are tired of things being not only unfair but not even remotely reasonable. It is laughable that Apple Music on Android doesn't use the built in IAP but forces you to pay via Apple. This will come back to haunt them. It doesn't matter that the ToS don't forbid this but in civil suits, it doesn't give them a leg to stand on. They are doing the exact thing they argue would prevent them from making any revenue if they changed their policy. If Apple was smart they would lower their percentage and move on. Better to pick the number than have it forced on you.

rydre 6y ago
The ego is going to kill future growth of the company. Investors, beware.
- Razengan 6y ago
  Apple Becomes First U.S. Company to Hit $1.5 Trillion in Market Value: https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/10/apple-1-5-trillion-market-capitalization/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/10/apple-1-5-trillion-mark... Investors have nothing to worry about, certainly not a company trying to make more money for them. :)
raverbashing 6y ago
> If Apple was smart they would lower their percentage and move on Smart and Apple on the same phrase has becoming less common lately. The anti-trust action seems to not be dissuading them from their actions.
horsawlarway 6y ago
If the regulation is smart (sometimes the EU does ok with tech regulation, sometimes they fail miserably) then it's not about picking a number. The number is never the issue. The issue is that apple has artificially blocked any competing channels from distributing to iOS. I don't believe they should be allowed to have a legal monopoly on app distribution. In fact, I'd go as far as the ruling for IE with Microsoft around basically the same issue but for web apps - Not only are you not allowed a legal monopoly on app distribution, you MUST ask the user which app distribution methods they'd like to enable.

rvz 6y ago

Maybe they should follow what Netflix is doing, since they don't have in-app purchases in iOS which is why they don't allow registrations at all and force you to sign up on the web. Not sure about Netflix's Android app though, but Google has sort of done this to Epic Games but only allowing logins and no registrations + card checks might bypass the Apple 30% tax.

ijpsud 6y ago
Are you sure Netflix is able to do this (genuine question)? According to this[0] article, Apple says that apps that target consumers (as opposed to businesses) must allow the user to sign up for the service from within the app: > Apple allows these kinds of client apps — where you can't sign up, only sign in — for business services but not consumer products. That's why Basecamp, which companies typically pay for, is allowed on the App Store when Hey, which users pay for, isn't. Anyone who purchased Hey from elsewhere could access it on iOS as usual, the company said, but the app must have a way for users to sign up and pay through Apple's infrastructure. [0] https://www.protocol.com/hey-email-app-store-rejection https://www.protocol.com/hey-email-app-store-rejection
misnome 6y ago
It looks like this is exactly what they are doing, and what Apple is complaining about?
gecko 6y ago
They did—or at least, are trying to. The issue is Apple is saying, based on unwritten rules, that Netflix is allowed to do it, while Hey isn’t. And that’s the crux of the problem
- philistine 6y ago
  I’m looking forward to Apple having to argue in front of a legislative body why streaming services are given a different treatment than any other software.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Read the article and Guideline 3.1.3(a). The rules aren't unwritten. Stop making things up.

philliphaydon 6y ago

If the app was like $1 or $2 on the app store just to avoid this headache, I would pay it.

spartas 6y ago
So would everyone else. Part of the problem is that hey is still in invite-only, and everyone who is able would just pay $1 or $2 to get around the invitation list.
- philliphaydon 6y ago
  Wish there wasn't a stupid invite list so I can use it now instead of waiting :/
  - spartas 6y ago
    Ditto :/

dustinmoris 6y ago

I'm probably in the minority with this view, but I do think that Apple's response makes 100% sense and is fair and reasonable. - I don't like how everyone claims they want a 30% cut. That is factually not quite true. It is 30% for non subs, which I think is fair. If I want to sell a product on a specific distribution channel then the cut should represent the possible reach and sales opportunity. In the case of subs it's only 15%. This is quite different than 30%. 30% is only for the first 12 months and for a sub which is paid annually this is nothing. Given that the first 12 months are very crucial in gaining critical mass I think 30% is fair and later it is really only 15%. - I have huge respect for DHH, but he criticises that Apple has published their response to journalists, which is a bit rich given that he started this "dog fight" in the public - The apps to which DHH compares Hey with are very different in nature and all the mail apps he constantly mentions are also different in nature. They all implement the suggestions which Apple has suggested in their response, so it's really Hey who wants to be treated with different rules because DHH thinks his online status can bully Apple into giving in? Not sure if that is right - Also I think it is possible to do both. You can disagree with the rules and fight them in a civil way in court, whilst also temporarily comply with the rules like everyone else to get your app public. This approach of not wanting to play by the rules, put them on fire and still publish an app whilst everything is burning seems like a weird strategy to me. Slightly unnecessarily aggressive in tone.

take_a_breath 6y ago
==Given that the first 12 months are very crucial in gaining critical mass I think 30% is fair and later it is really only 15%.== It’s a lot harder to gain critical mass when you are paying 30% directly to Apple, no? == You can disagree with the rules and fight them in a civil way in court, whilst also temporarily comply with the rules like everyone else to get your app public.== Make less money today while you fight the largest company in the history of earth in court. Meanwhile, Apple will just built a competing product and embed it in iOS (see: AppleTV). The rules seem to change while the game has already started.
imtringued 6y ago
I absolutely despise Apple and will never own an iPhone but what they did here is perfectly reasonable. Apple doesn't force users to use in-app purchases. It only forces developers (not users) to provide the option of purchasing access to services directly within the app. This isn't eliminating any choices for users and Apple isn't inserting itself between completely unrelated businesses to extend their reach beyond the Apple ecosystem.

hombre_fatal 6y ago

Finally a great breakdown of the issue and a fair look into what both sides, namely Apple, are trying to do here. > That, Apple said, is not what Hey is. Hey is a consumer app, paid for by users. And Apple takes issue with the idea that when one of those prospective users downloads the app, there's nothing they can do with it — they can't sign up, they can't pay, they have to go somewhere else before they can use the app. Apple doesn't like apps like that, at least when it feels they should be more accessible to their intended audience.

IncRnd 6y ago
If someone were to look at the reviews on the App Store, they would realize that users are extremely happy with the Hey app, despite how Apple attempts to portray the situation.
saysjonathan 6y ago
The Hey onboarding today is tied to a website-driven invite and signup process. While that _could_ be a bad customer experience through some lens, what percentage of users following this flow are or will be downloading this app prior to signing up? In a larger sense, Apple seems to be saying that, at least for consumer apps, they have an expected user flow from launch/beta through purchase. That flow makes Apple the primary channel and pipeline. If you have a multi-channel app (web + app, in this case), they want the main experience through the app regardless of business model or context. This makes the customer experience argument seem like misdirection.

dahdum 6y ago

Basecamp obviously knew this would go down like this. The cynic in me thinks this controversy was planned from the beginning as a PR / marketing exercise.

kjakm 6y ago
I've seen this comment all over the place and I genuinely can't believe people think this. Apple accepted v1.0 of the app. They're rejecting v1.0.1 which just contains some bug fixes. How could anybody predict this? It's also going to damage their long term relationship with Apple (an important partner) and if they lose this fight their entire product is in danger as being unable to access an email service on one of the most popular phones is going to be unsustainable for Hey.
- dahdum 6y ago
  Apple's stance on IAP isn't unknown, Spotify fought them and eventually just started charging a 30% premium on iOS subscriptions. Hey could do the same thing and likely will, but a public fight in the meantime is generating buzz. They were probably surprised they got 1.0 approved, I certainly would have been. Apple says they made a mistake approving it, which is not unheard of, and them clearly identified the guidelines they're breaking. Basecamp is full of smart and prominent people who know what they're doing. I can't believe they didn't predict or plan for this scenario when it's one of the most obvious to me.
hoppla 6y ago
Summer intern project

simion314 6y ago

Would it be more fair that - developers paid a hosting subscription for their app - pay for bandwidth used by the app downloads - pay for each update review - optional pay for promotion - Apple would not block legal content, just put it under a new category of stuff Apple disaproves but is legal. This would fix a part for the issues with stores, Apple can't say that they are hosting your app for free anymore or that they provide you bandwidth. The disadvantage I see is that small apps will have to pay a the yearly subscriptions but if the price is fair I see it similar as you pay for a domain and webhosting. Apple will have to find a new way to make money though, like maybe have better services instead of crippling competition, have better dev tools and hardware. Imagine there are only 2 companies that offer web hosting , and they will take 30% of your money (not profit but total) and on top of that they can reject your content if they don't like it.

oauea 6y ago
No, that would be absolutely absurd. The only thing that would be fair is for Apple and Google to allow third party stores without restricting them. I'll just put an .apk or .ipa file on my website and be done with these ridiculous stores. That's what's fair.
bartread 6y ago
You understand that this would kill free apps, and strongly disincentivize many startups and other small shops from developing for the app store? This, in turn, would devalue the entire iOS ecosystem and likely hurt Apple's revenue.
- simion314 6y ago
  Are there "free" apps? I mean you already pay for a dev account 100$ , so say i am an open source project, I already have to pay for dev account, for a Mac device so there is no free stuff. Apple could be kind and offer free hosting for open source projects and if someone affords to pay for a doman and webhosting to have their installer hosted there they could also pay the same amount for hosting on Apple servers.
IncRnd 6y ago

drchaim 6y ago

I'm probably missing something, but can't Hey just make subscriptions in their page and let the App from free in the App Store? Is the same as gmail, I can pay for a Google Suite, but the app is freely distributed in stores. Basecamp should have great products (I've never used them), but it seems they are using this as a marketing strategy.

libertine 6y ago
Didn't apple pull something similar with Spotify, that tried to direct users to their page for subscription and Apple warned/suspended them for doing so? Edit: Confirmed. >Spotify’s complaint against Apple is a good example(1)(2)(3). Apple charges Spotify a 30% fee to use the App Store(4) and limits how it can communicate with its users. Apple is the owner of the iOS platform and the App Store and is a direct competitor of Spotify(5). source: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2019-002996_EN.html https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2019-00299...
simonh 6y ago
>I'm probably missing something, but can't Hey just make subscriptions in their page and let the App from free in the App Store? That is exactly what they are doing at the moment. Apple has decided to invent a new requirement that this approach is only valid for business applications, and consumer client apps must offer in-app signup and purchase. I'm generally pro-Apple on these issues. It's their store running on their products on their infrastructure. However in this case I don't believe Hey is violating the current stated and published app store rules. Apple's decision in this case seems capricious and arbitrary, and more than a little hypocritical.

jw1224 6y ago

Honestly, Apple's response is actually pretty reasonable, all things considered. Read the full letter — it was clear, fair, and professional — despite coming off the back of a lot of bad press. I see plenty of comments are focussing on this quote, re their Basecamp apps: > These apps do not offer in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years Apple have (freely) provided Basecamp a platform to grow their business via the App Store, whilst giving Apple (effectively) nothing in return. Now that Basecamp want to grow their revenue further (at Apple's expense), AND they are breaching the rules (whether you agree with them or not) — I don't blame Apple for pressing the brakes. Especially not after all the negative press this whole debacle has brought them.

CJKinni 6y ago
> Apple have (freely) provided Basecamp a platform to grow their business via the App Store, whilst giving Apple (effectively) nothing in return. I've purchased an expensive phone mainly so that I can have access to a high quality ecosystem of apps. Apps like Basecamp and Hey are part of that for me. Apple gains so much from the breadth of high quality apps on the app store, including free apps. If they begin to see free apps as giving them effectively nothing, I see that as an indication that they no longer value the reasons I go to them as an iOS user.
FeepingCreature 6y ago
Once, phone makers thought that apps were a benefit to their phone, not a cost.
jbrooksuk 6y ago
> Apple have (freely) provided Basecamp a platform to grow their business via the App Store, whilst giving Apple (effectively) nothing in return. It's not free though, is it? You have to pay $99 a year, and purchase Apple hardware to develop and test software for their platforms. Basecamp, who hire 50+ people most likely all run Apple hardware, so that's tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars to Apple over the years.
- 6y ago

grey-area 6y ago

It seems any company becomes evil when it gets large enough.

Traster 6y ago

Apple should just offer Hey the option of providing the Hey app without the 30% cut, but negotiate how much Hey wants to pay for use of Apple's SDKs.

IncRnd 6y ago
Apple should negotiate with all developers as to how much they want to pay developers for offering content on their devices.

Uhrheber 6y ago

Do they also ban apps that show public transport schedules, because you can't buy tickets through them?

detaro 6y ago
That's really a nonsensical example. An app not having a feature to pay for something is very different from an app requiring to buy something elsewhere.
- hanselot 6y ago
  So requiring an app to have a feature would then be necessary for all those other applications.

cannam 6y ago

A curious thought experiment here is: what would the situation be in the case of a hypothetical third-party app that provided access to your Hey email? (I mean via some API that Hey offered - I think they don't actually offer one, but it's a hypothetical.) You would obviously still need a paid Hey account to use such an app, but there would be no way for the app's providers to enable you to sign up for one using Apple IAP. What then?

hanselot 6y ago

Your tech cults will all die one by one as the big players fall on their own swords. A walled garden is not very resistant to disease.

imron 6y ago

> The HEY Email app is marketed as an email app on the App Store, but when users download your app, it does not work. Users cannot use the app to access email or perform any useful function until after they go to the Basecamp website for Hey Email and purchase a license to use the HEY Email app. The Fastmail email app works exactly the same way and is available on the app store without issue. Seems like a pretty arbitrary decision here.

gambiting 6y ago

While obviously what Apple is doing is crap, why not just increase their in-app prices only on iOS? That's what Marvel have been doing with their comics. A comic that through their website costs £3, on the Android reader costs £3.29 and on their iOS reader costs £3.49. I always just buy them online and immediately download to my ipad without paying the Apple premium. Yes, it sucks - but it seems like a relatively easy way out.

koheripbal 6y ago
...because raising the price also reduces demand. This is the nature of the supply-demand curve. So you still end up with less revenues. Imagine that Hey found the ideal price point on the supply-demand curve. When you factor in Apple's fee - the new optimal price point on the curve may shift higher, but your net revenues will still be lower.

projektfu 6y ago

Apple’s policy really degrades the experience of apps on their platform, such as Kindle.

davidg109 6y ago

I’m on Apple’s side on this one. They’ve made Hey’s choice simple: change it so it’s compatible for people to use their mainstream email services (no $ involved), or make it subscription out of the box. Currently you need some dumb invite-only code. I actually feel misled by Hey’s comments pointing out that Netflix, etc. require a subscription to make the app useful. It wasn’t until I little additional digging revealed that the main difference you can order it straight away, and Apple still charges them the 30% fee. To get around this, Netflix charges for in-app or you can order cheaper directly from their site. I don’t believe Apple’s store T&C’s indicate Netflix is violating anything through this model. Really this is about how much is too much for Apple’s fee structure. I suspect regulators may try to force Apple to allow other App Stores (like Android) but then the usual problems will surface re: security, etc.

spartas 6y ago
I'm with HEY on this issue. As of a few months ago, Netflix abandoned in-app purchases entirely on Apple platforms. Try it yourself: sign out of your Netflix account on iOS and try and create a new account. There is no option to pay for a Netflix subscription within the app on iOS. It just isn't there. Fastmail is another app already on the App store that requires an account (but has no option to sign up within the app itself). Salesforce Inbox and GMail are two other email apps currently on the App store that do not allow the user to sign up within the app itself. (An aside about Gmail: I'm now receiving almost-daily emails from Google > Your Gmail is full. Get more storage now with a Google One membership. Plans start at $1.99 a month. How much of that money do you think Apple would like to get? How much of that money goes to Apple? None. That is not implemented as an in-app purchase. )
- davidg109 6y ago
  I’m still seeing in-app purchases as an option via App Store for Netflix. I can’t comment on the other apps you mentioned except for Gmail. And here’s where I disagree with you. Gmail is still functional without paying anything. You don’t hit a paywall immediately after downloading. The app provides immediate functionality to users. If Google decided to force subscription-only, that’s when Apple would be saying you need to either open it up, or use our in-app subscription service. Google’s upsell is not a requirement to use Gmail’s basic functionality. The app must provide immediately functionality after downloading. Guess how much functionality the Hey app I downloaded is providing to me right now? Zero. Because I need an “invite-only” code.

aaanotherhnfolk 6y ago

Apple forces Hey's app in front of unsuspecting users with App Store promotions. If the app doesn't provide any value to a random person who comes across it in the App Store, that doesn't mean it should be banned from the App Store. That means it should be banned from promotion in the App Store. Hey should still be able to link its users directly to the App Store entry and otherwise make it unlisted in the App Store. Apple can find a creative way to tax this if they wanted, but what is the yearly developer fee for if not a fee for distribution and security/compliance certifications? Apple needs to stop conflating distribution on their platform with promotion on their platform. Not every app needs both. 30% cut only makes sense in a publishing deal where Apple promotes the product in the storefront.

myroslambda 6y ago

I can offer some opinion as developer in a small indie game company (shameless self-promotion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23565739 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23565739). Supporting iOS is super hard for us. The Apple market is heavily controlled and supervised. We have had apps rejected because we included links to the Android equivalent in the description (same price, so no big reason to switch platforms when you are already on our iTunes page, and no way anyone can install an Android app on an iPhone anyway). Apple used to offer a more or less standard set of phones, resolutions, and architecture. But that has diversified more in the last years. For Android and Linux, we have it much easier to build tools, to handle dependencies, and generally to deploy. Actually, all development happens on Linux, simply because it's a much better and more comfortable platform. When we need to deploy for iOS, we boot the mac computer (which we had to pay for), re-compile the game, try it on the iPhone (which we also had to pay for), upload, and turn it off. Additionally, and I don't have all the details on this myself, Google apparently has also made it much easier for us than Apple to operate when it comes to taxes and banking. We normally have to sell thousands of units per month to "make it" (and we don't). For Android, the fees are low enough to justify keeping things open even if we don't sell much one month. In a wider perspective, we operate in a market with lots of apps and games being offered for free, really high fees and standards set by the major stores, and continuous pressure from the community, our competitors (of course!) and ourselves to release more of our work as open source. Essentially, the combination is crushing, and Apple's move does not help :( For what is worth, we recently launched "safe2play" (https://keera.co.uk/2020/06/17/safe2play-caring-for-privacy-in-an-interconnected-world/ https://keera.co.uk/2020/06/17/safe2play-caring-for-privacy-...), which is an idea meant to make both people safer and the pricing model more transparent. It would probably align with Apple's desires better too, although that's an unintended side-effect.

jaclaz 6y ago

Generically speaking, I thought that the promise of the Internet was to have more (and more direct) access to resources. When it comes to e-commerce or e-subscriptions that should have meant the end of the middlemen, the products or contents/whatever are delivered directly from the author/producer/supplier to the end user, cutting costs.