18 ms·

You download the app and it doesn’t work

• gjsman-1000 6y ago
  It's a good thing for Apple that WWDC isn't in-person this year. I wouldn't trust the developers in the audience to stay quiet and applause at the announcements this year...
  • moooo99 6y ago
    I'm surprised that Hey! managed to create such a big public outrage about that issue. Years ago Spotify complained about the very same thing and given that Spotify has a much bigger userbase I kind of expected the outrage to be bigger. I suppose a large share of the potential Hey customers work in tech and might have a better understanding of what the app store tax actually means. And the EU anti trust investigations probably play role too?
    • benologist 6y ago
      One of the Hey founders created Ruby On Rails so he is fairly renowned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Heinemeier_Hansson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Heinemeier_Hansson
      • etse 6y ago
        I doubt that was a real factor, but maybe the webpage itself is. It is really well done: clear, compelling, and responsive, even. The Spotify website was more artistic, less visually readable, and didn't have as punchy points or counterexamples, at least to my memory.
    • ksec 6y ago
      Hey was extremely hyped before the launch. At least in certain tech / developer circle. And people have been wanting something new to email. With a waiting list of over 70K, and 10K from first day alone. People saying Hey is hyped up because of Apple is getting the story backwards. The waiting list is also not just filling in an email address but actually writing an email saying you want in. That is some friction involved and I have seen lots of people while interested but didn't bother with writing one. Remember Hey isn't free. People on waiting list already knew this from day one. With 70K invite, that is $7M annual revenue already. DHH also went on about making sure no mention of Sign up in Webpages as well as many other commonly known App Stores rules before the App was submitted. And many thought it would pass, and it did for 1.0. It is the bug fix 1.01 update that was blocked Due to IAP reason. For most if not all iOS developers. This is new. So new that Fastmail didn't get their treatment until now. [1] This new IAP rule force 30% on new sign up, as you could not even allow the App to be on App Store without IAP ( hence this website ). Along with the threat from Apple about pulling Hey from App Store, and finally their tone, which was like adding even more fuel to outrage, and I quote Thank you for being an iOS app developer. 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. Is not exactly helping and got even more outrage from developers who dont even use Hey. To me that is about the most polite way from Apple saying fuck you. ( If the webpage author is reading this I suggest you include this quote on the webpage, or make a new site with all the popular useful free Apps that helped users but contributed noting to Apple. ) I know there are many who hate DHH and Ruby Rails, but seriously I cant see how he could have orchestra the whole thing as marketing. As if he knew about the IAP rule changes before hand. [1]https://twitter.com/Fastmail/status/1273800222989324288 https://twitter.com/Fastmail/status/1273800222989324288
      • moooo99 6y ago
        Hey was really hyped, it was actually crazy. I'm happy to pay for my mail service, but 99€ for an individual plan seems pretty hefty to me. There are regularly stories about iOS apps getting removed for odd reasons on the HN tops, but the Hey story blew up pretty quickly. > I know there are many who hate DHH and Ruby Rails I also I also heard that a lot of people hate DHH and his Twitter comment bubble doesn't seem to like HN. Either way, he is certainly not wrong about the issue. I also don't see how Hey would profit from marketing around that. First of all, Hey is pretty expensive and has a pretty narrow target audience as of now. Most people are perfectly happy with their free mail, people who aren't are probably already aware that those alternatives exist. Even more importantly, I don't see how they are going to profit by putting their App Store listing at risk. I doubt an E-Mail service is able so succeed if it doesn't offer native applications or at least a integration with third party clients. Since they chose to not support IMAP etc, Hey's iOS app is integral to the buisness. No app in the store, no profit.
    • slantyyz 6y ago
      I people like a David (in this case, HH) vs. Goliath story and wants to root for the so-called little guy. I tend to think Spotify is too big for the media and other pundits to consider to be the little guy.
    • eddieroger 6y ago
      Everyone is home on their mobile devices waiting for things to happen. I don’t think this outrage is as widespread as it seems, we just live in a tech echo chamber that is resonating pretty loudly right now. And, it’s the weekend before WWDC, so Apple headlines grab extra attention. I think if this happened six months ago, no one would be talking about Hey and they’d have acquiesced by now.
      • moooo99 6y ago
        I expected that the tech-echo chamber plays a role, but I was askeby friends what this discussion is all about. Said friends don't work in the industry and aren't really tech-savy either. Sure, is obviously tech focused, but it seems more widespread than back when Spotify sued.
    • rydre 6y ago
      Everyone is tired of Apple's nickel and diming. This was the last straw that broke the camels back.
• Hamuko 6y ago
  Could someone point out where the "you download the app and it doesn't work" [1] and the "the criteria is different for apps that are targeted at businesses instead of consumers" [2] rules are actually listed for developers to read? [1] https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/18/phil-schiller-apple-hey-decision-no-changes/ https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/18/phil-schiller-apple-hey... [2] https://daringfireball.net/2020/06/hey_app_store_rejection_flimsiness https://daringfireball.net/2020/06/hey_app_store_rejection_f...
  • smitop 6y ago
    Here are the App Store Review Guidelines, section 3 is about in-app purchases: https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/ https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
    • Hamuko 6y ago
      Which clauses are those two rules in?
      • jedieaston 6y ago
        The rule that business-targeted apps and consumer-targeted apps are subject to different IAP rules is not in the App Store Review Guidelines. Basecamp asked them why Hey was blocked and Basecamp was not, they were given that as a response.
• drawkbox 6y ago
  Apple shouldn't be dictating this. However, even if apps/companies have sign up in the app I still use the web browser to sign up. I like the security of the browser more for personal info and set up than an app full of unnecessary permissions. I personally truly do not mind, and even prefer, opening up a browser to sign up. Overall for liability reasons it might even be better to just have one endpoint for signing up, the web.
  • theshrike79 6y ago
    They can dictate it, they just should be consistent. Force everyone to do it or no-one, don't pick the WORST POSSIBLE APP to deny. @dhh isn't one of the people Apple really wants to get on the bad side of (See Apple Card debacle).
    • quickthrower2 6y ago
      Yeah this is business, and they are playing the "follow the rules" unless you have some clout, or the absence of your app would make us look shit.
• iSoron 6y ago
  > "That’s not what we want on the store" -- Apple Vice President of Worldwide Marketing What if I own an iPhone and HEY is what I want on my phone? How can I override Apple's decision? If I can't, who really owns this device?
  • scubbo 6y ago
    > How can I override Apple's decision? If I can't, who really owns this device? I know you're not, but - anyone earnestly asking this question hasn't been paying attention to Apple since, well, ever.
    • iwasakabukiman 6y ago
      Not just Apple, the entire electronics industry.
      • catalogia 6y ago
        TVs used to come with circuit diagrams so that people could repair it themselves at home using standard parts. I've not seen anything like that in many years, even for far simpler appliances.
        • scubbo 6y ago
          I feel like that's a disingenuous comparison, given how complex the electronics of appliances must be nowadays (disclaimer: I have absolutely no idea, my experience is strictly at the software level) - but the general principle should still apply to be able to use products that you own in a (non-harmful) way that you choose.
          • catalogia 6y ago
            Loads of appliances are still straight forward, simpler than TVs ever were. Vacuum cleaners are not exactly supercomputers.
          • 6y ago
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• scubbo 6y ago
  I'm pretty surprised they haven't just Maliciously Complied by offering an in-app signup buried somewhere obscure in the app, with lots of big flashing warning signs saying "don't click this, it's only for compliance reasons" - and a nice discoverable easily-followable link to the browser-based sign-up. They could be continuing to make the (justified and correct!) stink about Apple's terrible practices, while also having their app on the store (or forcing Apple to further highlight how arbitrarily-applied their standards are). Win-win.
  • shaggyfrog 6y ago
    What makes you think that kind of Malicious Compliance update gets accepted at all? The problem with a hypocritical stance is that its existence defies logic to begin with.
    • scubbo 6y ago
      Honestly - I don't think it would be accepted. But, in either outcome, they're better off: * If it gets accepted - great, they're unblocked, and can keep delivering for customers * If it doesn't get accepted, they have even more ammunition to say "look, even when we conform to Apple's rules, they _still_ block us".
  • the8472 6y ago
    Why not jack up prices and then offer a 30% "discount" via web signups?
    • jonplackett 6y ago
      part of the app store rules is you can't do that. you have to offer it for the same price. somehow spotify seem to have gotten away with not doing this.
      • scarface74 6y ago
        That’s not true. In fact Spotify did charge more for in app subscriptions v
• paulgb 6y ago
  > Purchases possible without Apple? > $99/year email service, of which Apple is rent-seeking $30 I'm wholly on Hey's side here, but I think this is a misleading way of putting it. Apple only wants 30% of in-app purchases, not purchases made outside of the app. The contention is that Hey thinks they shouldn't be required to accept in-app purchases, which given that either Hey or the user pays Apple an expensive tax on those purchases, makes sense to me.
  • CyberMew 6y ago
    That is exactly what it means. If it costs $100, Apple is taking a $30 cut.
    • paulgb 6y ago
      If the purchase is made in the app, yes. The wording on the site makes it sound like Apple wants a cut of purchases made outside of the app.
      • jonplackett 6y ago
        well they kinda do, they're saying that they can't do the purchase outside the app and must do it instead in the app, and give them 30%
        • paulgb 6y ago
          No, they allow you to have out-of-app sign ups as long as you also have in-app sign-ups, and you can't reference the out-of-app signups (e.g. link to them) from within the app.
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  • Hamuko 6y ago
    And Apple rejected the app because you can't buy that $99 service via IAP, meaning they have no ability to get their 30%.
• hakcermani 6y ago
  Good start with compiling the list .. a couple more .. AirBnb, All airline apps. Maybe they have contracts with the big guys for some lump sum deal, or maybe they are just letting them go as they have to ... We developers already pay for the subscription, WWDC, a shiny iPhone / MBP every couple of years (to test and develop the new features :(, learn a language and sdks just for the Apple world - We Devs need Apple for sure, but hey they need us too (!) .. high time for a push back .. Apple makes tons on the devices, they need to stop robbing from us little guy developers. Apple do the right thing and drop this 30% altogether .. you will not miss it :)
  • MattGaiser 6y ago
    It is about 1/4 of net profit. They make 15 billion in revenue a year on the app store. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/apple-app-store-had-estimated-gross-sales-of-50-billion-in-2019.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/07/apple-app-store-had-estimate...
    • iainmerrick 6y ago
      I agree with everyone else here that Apple’s weird rules and the inconsistent way they’re enforced are both bad. But I don’t think the solution is as obvious as “drop the 30% cut”. How should Apple go about making money from the App Store? Paid apps are dwindling off. They do charge a flat fee per developer, but it can’t be too large or they’ll lose all the indie developers, and there just aren’t enough developers overall to make that a viable business on its own. They could charge a flat fee to the developer per app download -- something really small, a few cents per download -- but then what about free apps? What they want is to take a share of the profits from developers who are making money on their platform, while also supporting free apps free of charge. The 30% fee is their attempt to do that. The problem is that it’s easy to game the system and just run your payments outside their store. Hence all the silly rules to try to prevent that. Maybe 30% is just too much. Would people complain as much if it were 10%, or 5%? Or maybe they should just give up on App Store revenue and focus on hardware sales. But it would be a little weird for them not to have a direct incentive to improve the store experience for users.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• rocky1138 6y ago
  All of these examples work as websites. What this says to me is that we actually don't _need_ apps.
  • gfodor 6y ago
    And they only work as websites as long as Apple's Safari engine continues to let them. Did you know you can't ship a custom browser engine on iOS? Yup, another one of the rules. See why?
  • shaggyfrog 6y ago
    Consider the user experience of an email app that only works when you have a network connection — so you can’t even see your mail when you’re offline. Pretty lousy.
    • searchableguy 6y ago
      You can have offline web apps. Although apple is actively sabotaging PWA standards.
  • paulgb 6y ago
    Except Hey, which would need the Push API to build a reasonable PWA experience. Android and Safari desktop have it, but not iOS. https://caniuse.com/#feat=push-api https://caniuse.com/#feat=push-api
    • the_gipsy 6y ago
      Android has this feature for how many years now? I tried to look it up, I saw 13 years but that sounded like too long.
• p0llard 6y ago
  Ordinarily I would be inclined to say that as a "private marketplace", Apple is entirely within its rights to selectively enforce rules (and whims) like this so as to maximize their profit, but surely there must be a limit when about 45% of US smartphone users (so about 36% of the population) have an iPhone [1]? At this point this is no private dark pool, but a public market place, the transactions on which affect an unfathomable number of consumers, and Apple should and must be subject to the level of government regulation and oversight that governs other public market places like the NYSE and the CME. I suspect that this will come sooner or later, or otherwise these markets will be broken up entirely, but behavior like this from Apple only hastens this outcome. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/236550/percentage-of-us-population-that-own-a-iphone-smartphone/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/236550/percentage-of-us-...
  • searchableguy 6y ago
    I am surprised no one has mentioned the Amazon getting special treatment from apple on in-app purchases. https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/3/21206400/apple-tax-amazon-tv-prime-30-percent-developers https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/3/21206400/apple-tax-amazon-...
  • akersten 6y ago
    I dislike the 30% IAP cut as much as the next developer, but what is it about perceived tech monopolies that bring out the hyperbolic comparisons? > Apple should and must be subject to the level of government regulation and oversight that governs other public market places like the NYSE and the CME. First it's Facebook should be treated as a Public-as-in-Government Square, and now the App Store should be governed like the stock market? I think Apple's morally in the wrong here. But the solution isn't just going to be just pulling some lofty regulation out of thin air and trying to re-apply it.
    • Drew_ 6y ago
      > But the solution isn't just going to be just pulling some lofty regulation out of thin air and trying to re-apply it. That's exactly what the solution will be. Apple will eventually be responsible for ushering in regulation that kills software distribution monopolies like the App Store. It'll be an interesting new landscape to be in for a lot of markets.
• gcheong 6y ago
  I don’t think anything will change unless a strong class action and/or monopoly suit is brought against Apple and I often wonder why we haven’t seen one yet.
  • g_p 6y ago
    The EU's new antitrust investigation [1] might be close enough to a monopoly suit, just likely to be slower and more drawn out. It had the desired effect against Internet Explorer though last time around, I guess. Relevant quote from investigation announcement: "The investigations concern in particular the mandatory use of Apple's own proprietary in-app purchase system and restrictions on the ability of developers to inform iPhone and iPad users of alternative cheaper purchasing possibilities outside of apps." [1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1073 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_...
  • neop1x 6y ago
    Apple also doesn't allow any browser technology other than their built-in WebKit so all browsers are internally the same on iOS. They also doesn't support free VP9 video coded because they are part of competitive FFMPEG. I didn't like Apple due to this gatekeeper/walled garden but I started to hate it more after watching "Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine" documentary. Such a big company and still they did illegal option backdating, avoiding tax in Ireland, etc. It needs more time for people to realize their mistake of supporting this company.
• xwdv 6y ago
  I really don’t get the hills people choose to die on these days. Do you want a successful business? Ok, then follow the rules, cover your ass, and do what you need to do to get your business going, even if it’s not always the ideal situation for you. But no, I guess lashing out explosively and torpedoing everything because you’re not treated like the big players when you’re still a little guy is more satisfying, if less profitable.
  • spzb 6y ago
    It’s done wonders for Hey in free publicity. Not that that could possibly be a reason for making a big fuss about it.
    • rubenfonseca 6y ago
      This, 1000 times. The best PR stunt they could ever dream.
    • lvh 6y ago
      They didn't build this website.
      • spzb 6y ago
        Did I suggest they did?
  • Hamuko 6y ago
    >Ok, then follow the rules It'd help if there were consistent rules that were equally enforced.
  • alexashka 6y ago
    Nobody is dying. It's precisely because everyone's so deeply cynical and feeling so powerless, that these rent seeking practices continue to flourish. The way out is not to try and carve out a little niche for yourself and hope they don't come for you next. You can if you're a selfish coward but know that people don't respect selfish cowards and unless you want to live alone or with a few other cowards who agree to cling to each other for miserly comfort, it is a losing strategy. The way out is also not to cause anarchy because 'everything is fucked anyway'. This PR tsunami is actually one of the best weapons against monopolies, because they signal to policy makers that they can make a career out of working for a cause that the public deeply cares about. The big corps know this and try to avoid PR problems but it seems like Apple has gotten real bold as of late and I look forward to seeing what comes of this.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• frusciante29 6y ago
  Nice work, DHH! Is it built on the latest RoR?
• hendzen 6y ago
  Apple takes a 30% cut of all IAP. Google scrapes info and displays it in widgets above links to the actual content. Google charges trademark holders AdWords ransom to protect searches for their own brands. Amazon kills OSS business models by offering managed OSS services on AWS at an unbeatable cost. Amazon picks off the best performing market place categories with Amazon Basics ‘recommended’ competitors. The list goes on and on. Tech is an industry defined on building scale and then collecting rents. Apple IAP is just the current outrage but the entire industry is working towards building the next ‘platform’ for others to sharecrop on.
  • happytoexplain 6y ago
    There are so many comments written in this weirdly contradictory tone - I can't tell if you support or oppose the behaviors of these companies.
    • MattGaiser 6y ago
      I have never heard the word "sharecrop" used in a supportive way.
    • jeffmcmahan 6y ago
      I'd say the term 'sharecrop' clearly carries a strongly negative connotation...
    • pas 6y ago
      AdWords ransom. Not a positive thing. That said, the comment is a simple terse statement of "facts".
    • rbecker 6y ago
      Comments can do more than just express support or opposition.
      • gdsdfe 6y ago
        it's all this tribalism in the world nowadays ... it's like just tell me, are you with me or against me? as if these are the only options
• benologist 6y ago
  Developers that charge extraordinary amounts via subscription should be listed somewhere too, so we know who to avoid. BUDGE used to make children's games that unlocked for $5 - $15 one-time purchase, now the same size and caliber titles are each almost $100/year, just a big Apple-sponsored bet on zombie subscription fraud staying "acceptable" for a few more years till Apple fixes the problem they created that amplified their cash flow. Throughout it all we miss that the 30% isn't even getting us good custodians. https://mjtsai.com/blog/2019/07/12/predatory-ios-app-subscriptions/ https://mjtsai.com/blog/2019/07/12/predatory-ios-app-subscri...
• cannam 6y ago
  I'm really enjoying all this. I don't care about Hey and I'm not an iOS user, but I would love to see this situation, which represents something increasingly accepted as normal but that none of us quite understand, forced into a proper accommodation with reality.
• zuhayeer 6y ago
  Wow you lot quick with this, and the site is pretty – good stuff
• dariusj18 6y ago
  I know it's not part of the principle, but is there anything in the rules that says you can't charge an additional fee to those signing up using in app payments? If this is the hill Apple chooses to die on, every Apple customer just has to pay an additional 30ish% for a service, but of course you can always sign up online for the special sale price.
  • humanistbot 6y ago
    Yes, markups are explicitly forbidden and will get you kicked off the app store.
    • evan_ 6y ago
      Youtube Premium is more expensive if you buy it as an in-app subscription. $15.99 vs $11.99
• mns 6y ago
  So nice for the people of Basecamp to be fighting the good fight for everyone and the small developers. It’s not like they were perfectly fine with the system as long as it didn’t affect them, being one of the “famous” companies out there, while independent developers and small start-ups had to deal with this for years and years. I was excited about hey before, and even though I don’t agree and don’t like the way the App Store works, I find Hey and the superstars behind it so hypocritical and annoying now. It’s funny how we hate here AMP and other technologies that are killing the open web, but we’re fine with a closed email system that locks you in Basecamp’s walled garden.
  • bsaul 6y ago
    I suppose you’re not affected by app store policies. Otherwise you’d be extremely grateful to DHH to step up and fight publicly, instead of trying to deal with apple in private or just cave in. It has never felt so close to actually breaking up apple tight grip on its developer community, and it’s all thanks to him.
    • mns 6y ago
      Because they are being ridiculous already. It’s one thing to help developers and try to bring up their stories and issues with the App Store, it’s another thing to come up with ridiculous examples (Tesla, banking apps, AirBnB and so on, that have nothing to to with SaaS, subscriptions and IAP) and this insane campaign for their own product.
      • lifty 6y ago
        What about Netflix and Amazon? Those examples seem very valid to me.
        • hejja 6y ago
          I interpreted the "reader app" definition in their policy as: either - app value is content driven (netflix) OR - data-driven (bloomberg) OR - or physical (airbnb, amazon) in cases where you could say, the client is the "main driver of value" they are pretty consistent. take a game, for example -- or hey's proprietary filtering system. that said, I don't agree with 30%, jsut my understanding
• hyperpape 6y ago
  There are a lot of rules lawyers in threads about Hey trying to figure out "tricks" that Basecamp or others could use to avoid the rule. That is not how this works. Apple is not a court, which (usually) plays by well stated rules, and cannot remake those rules at its discretion. No, if you find a "trick" to get around Apple's rules[0], what happens is that you get blocked when they catch you. They might update the rules to explicitly ban what you did, but they'll gladly ban you first and change the rules later. That's if you're little. If you're big (Google, Facebook, Uber), you might get a call from Tim Cook warning you that you need to stop what you're doing or you'll have trouble soon. Or perhaps they'll ban your cafeteria app, while leaving your consumer apps in the marketplace. Maybe you'll even get to negotiate, if you have enough leverage. But what won't happen is that Tim Cook will say "Looks like the rules don't cover this situation. Awwww, shucks!" [0] There are some rules they don't care about (like marketing using push notifications), and enforcement of rules can be mixed. This is for the rules they care about.
  • breakfastduck 6y ago
    It's a bit of a joke to be honest. Hey are trying to market an app on the app store as a 'free' app. Not offering sign up also means they don't have to add the 'offers in app purchases'. So they're advertising the app as free. Even though its $99 a year. Apples 30% cut is obscene and should be less. But Hey are using a 'free' label to market their app.
    • thatswrong0 6y ago
      Netflix is a "free" app.
    • ksec 6y ago
      The point of this website is precisely to show there are apps labeled as free but requires additional paying membership to use it.
    • hyperpape 6y ago
      This would be a legitimate complaint if Apple let you show an app as free with non-Apple subscription. It is actually against Apple’s rules for Basecamp to make it any clearer.
• parsimo2010 6y ago
  I think there needs to be some distinction between apps that are the main product (or close to it) and apps that support another product (like there is npo point to having the app by itself, you should already have gotten the product/account before downloading the app). I don't know too much about Apple's rules to know if they use that criteria, but it makes sense to me. An app to manage your Tesla makes no sense unless you own a Tesla. You probably (definitely?) created an account when you ordered your car, so you don't need to sign-up in app. I suppose people that could buy a used Tesla without a Tesla account, but I'm pretty sure you need to link the used car to a new account before you can manage it through the app with the new account, so it still doesn't make sense to offer in-app signup. I see no issue with the Tesla app being approved. Some of the other apps do seem to be legitimate complaints. Netflix being an obvious one- it's totally plausible for someone to expect to download Netflix on their iPad and then pay through Apple. Netflix could easily offer that but doesn't (probably because of the 30% cut). Apple would gladly reject a smaller app, but they approve Netflix because too many users would complain if they couldn't get Netflix on their iPad. Edit: one other thing I haven't seen whether Basecamp could just charge $141.43 per year if someone pays through Apple, so Basecamp would get $99 per year after Apple takes their 30% cut. They are allowed to offer outside subscriptions for multiplatform products, as long as those subscriptions are also available in-app. That seems like it would follow Apple's rules. People that don't care about money could sign up in-app, but most people will sign up outside the app.
  • triangleman 6y ago
    The distinction between app and web is blurred and I don't think it's easy to make this distinction. Can anyone explain why some apps are mobile only, like the Shop app? I have not tried it yet as a result. Also, does Apple take a cut of those sales?
  • paulhodge 6y ago
    Tesla is definitely one of the easier cases to think about, the rest are in a grey area. But even with Tesla it's not 100% crystal clear. There might be some buyers who pick Tesla specifically because of the fancy tech features like Summon mode. It's impossible to use Summon mode without the app. So for one of those buyers, the app is an essential part of the purchase, just like HEY subscribers who expect to read emails on their phone.
• MattGaiser 6y ago
  One of the problems is that as a consumer, I like the features Apple implements with this. I can just use Apple Pay instead of handing over my credit card. Don't want a subscription? No complicated process. No need to call a number. No need to email anyone. I just click to cancel and I am done. As lousy as this is, the consumer experience is dramatically improved.
  • 013a 6y ago
    I do too. But, a better middle-ground needs to be found which services both consumers and developers. It could literally be as simple as something closer to a 90/10 split.
    • breakfastduck 6y ago
      There wouldn't be uproar if it was 10%. Everything else is perfectly reasonable but taking a 30% cut is extreme.
      • Spivak 6y ago
        Why though? Apple is well-aware of their worth in your sales funnel and know that customer acquisition outside of their store/devices is a lot more expensive. Nobody would be complaining if you Apple's user-base wasn't so juicy that your best option is forking over 30%. If it was easy to acquire customers outside the store it wouldn't even be an issue.
        • donmcronald 6y ago
          Forking over 30% isn't the best option. It's the only option. If Apple had unlisted apps that didn't show up in the store listings and required a click through from your website to get to the app's store page, I bet some developers would opt for that if it meant they didn't have to pay the 30% tax.
          • Spivak 6y ago
• turdnagel 6y ago
  Basecamp/Hey seems to have hit upon a combination of use case, pricing, and closedness that Apple doesn’t like. Email, $99/year, no POP/IMAP? Not allowed. But there’s no policy on paper about it.
• dgudkov 6y ago
  On a side note, I don't know whether it's intentional or not, but the whole story is a great marketing campaign for HEY. Clashing with Apple made everybody learn about the app in a matter of days.
  • zaroth 6y ago
    I would say that if anything Hey was hoping that Apple would reject their app specifically so they could become a cause célèbre, and ride the streisand effect, They've done a great job organizing their protest campaign. I would be extremely surprised if it wasn't planned from the beginning. They are ultimately depending on Apple caving under pressure.
    • jessaustin 6y ago
      It isn't clear that Hey couldn't just be a PWA like many other email services?
      • realtalk_sp 6y ago
        Do you have any statistics breaking down how frequently mobile users access email via a PWA versus a dedicated app? Also surveys on the difference in user experience? If not, please refrain from disingenuously advancing obviously problematic ideas. It adds nothing to the conversation.
        • jessaustin 6y ago
          ...disingenuously... It was a serious question. I'm sorry if it caught you in a situation that didn't allow you to perceive it in that way.
        • jfoster 6y ago
          It's not as though a statistic about how frequently mobile users access mail via a website is a measurement of some universal value. If that's the only way for iOS users to use Hey, then would find some users who are willing to do that. What's wrong with this being put forward? I would go so far to say that this is one of the four main things that happen when an app is rejected from an app store. 1. Change the app. 2. Don't support the platform. 3. Sideload. 4. Direct users from that platform to the web version.
• GiorgioG 6y ago
  I’ve been working on a side-project SaaS (primarily the backend to this point) and a few weeks ago I’d decided I didn’t want to deal with the JavaScript front-end world (I deal with it at work) and thought I’d build mobile and desktop clients instead. At this point I’m ready to reverse my decision. Screw Apple and Google. They’ve built these App Store ecosystems to drive sales/adoption of their platforms (Apple sells more hardware and google collects more eyeballs.) Somewhere along the way they forgot that apps are why people use their devices/platforms.
• tylerwince 6y ago
  This site is really cool, but I think the person who took the screenshots should charge their phone.
• m0zg 6y ago
  I don't see how Apple can win this one TBH. If Hey isn't offering in-app sign-up, they're in the clear IMO - the precedent for this is well established. So they'll have to either apply the same rules to everyone, or disclose the special treatment for the likes of Netflix, which does exactly what Hey does. But I'm sure folks who defended Amazon banning Kindle books they don't like will just say that Apple is not a monopolist, and DHH is free to build his own mobile platform. /s
  • newbie578 6y ago
    If you have been following these few days threads like these, there were quite a few "interesting characters" who said that if you don't like it, leave and build your own platform x)
• tomlagier 6y ago
  I think the standard response should be to allow the in-app signup/purchase with a 42% marked up rate and a very clear line item that it is the "Apple platform tax, not charged via other distributors". Worth doing the same to Google IMO. I think the "right" amount to charge would be something like a standard credit card processor - 30 cents + 3% or so. Maybe a flat 5 or 10% for apps under a certain price. I can't imagine Apple's payment processing and app screening being much more expensive than Visa's payment processing and fraud detection.
  • Spivak 6y ago
    You're not paying for the payment processing. You never have been paying for the payment processing. You're paying for the fact that iOS devices are an extremely valuable retail space and being able to sell there is worth a lot of money to your sales funnel.
    • robbrown451 6y ago
      Yes but I think what tomlagier is saying is that the "right" thing to charge for is the payment processing (he also mentions app screening), as opposed to charging for the privilege of being allowed to run on Apple devices. Otherwise you get into all these issues that are potentially "wrong," at least from the perspective of people who agree with the general concept of antitrust law. It's not just whether something is extremely valuable. App store as a "retail space" wouldn't be so valuable if you could easily buy iOS apps in other app stores. From the perspective of an iOS device owner, Apple has a monopoly on the retailing of apps.
      • zaroth 6y ago
        Apple isn’t just providing payment processing. The entire development environment and SDK, app hosting, install and update, services like Data Sync (whatever they call it), Push notifications, etc. If Apple let apps side-load from a website, and not access any of the iCloud or push services... you’re basically back to a PWA.
• jonny383 6y ago
  Solid investment on the long domain name for a single article.
• mikenew 6y ago
  I've been a freelance iOS app developer for almost a decade. Apple has always operated this way. They have rules that are somewhat vague, and they choose when they want to enforce them and how they should be interpreted. For example: you weren't allowed to show device bezels in app store screenshots for a long time, even though all the major apps did exactly that. If you were a small time developer though you would get rejected, sometimes, with that cited as a reason. There's currently the same problems with asking for app reviews. Everyone wants to filter users through the "do you like the app? Yes/No" popups to try and make sure only good reviews get through. It's explicitly stated in the app store guidelines that you have to use the system provided prompt that doesn't allow for that, but it's only selectively enforced. So if your competition is filtering reviews but you aren't allowed to, you're at a huge disadvantage. And there's plenty of other ambiguous rules like that. In app purchases being a major one. You could have your app on the store for a year and then suddenly get a rejection notice on a bugfix update that they don't like your payment setup. Point is: Apple will do absolutely whatever they want, and you have zero recourse. If you're a small developer it can kill you. Plenty of people will say "just follow the rules and you won't have a problem", but the rules are arbitrary and selectively enforced. For example, there was the Steam Link app debacle that Apple decided to reject after it's big release, and they literally just wrote new rules to exclude it[0]. And if they allowed alternative app stores I think you could excuse a lot of it. But they don't. And they never will unless they are forced to. 0: https://www.macworld.com/article/3276327/the-steam-link-app-for-ios-is-dead-rejected-by-apple.html https://www.macworld.com/article/3276327/the-steam-link-app-...
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • zaroth 6y ago
    Humans applying policy will be inconsistent. The alternative is Google where algorithms apply policy, and if they misapply a policy to you're simply screwed. I think the inverse to "Apple employed humans make a judgement call" is "Apple is no longer allowed to control their App Store". I don't like that option, because the curated App Store is a big reason why I bought an iPhone.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• MarkMc 6y ago
  You download the app and it hints that you can sign up, but doesn't have a button or link to do so. How frustrating! This is the sort of crappy user experience that Steve Jobs would have railed against. No doubt that he would accept, say, Netflix getting a discount off the standard 30%, but there's no way he would have accepted the status quo where (a) Netflix has a deliberately poor user experience on iOS to workaround Apples rules; (b) Apple gets zero revenue from Netflix.
• zaroth 6y ago
  There are very few examples here which are direct comparisons. There's a difference between an app which is an auxiliary offering to an existing service, and an app which is the product itself. I totally understand Apple's "it should just work" policy. Its a big reason why the net spend in the App Store is as high as it is. App Store is a big reason why people are spending money on small dollar apps in the first place. There are approximately 2 million apps in the App Store. How many of them would be trying to collect credit card information independently if Apple stepped back from their IAP policy? It was be a usability and privacy nightmare. For the average user, tap to purchase / IAP is what makes the App Store "just work".
• ggm 6y ago
  Industry regulation by the FTC not self regulation. This is about markets, restraint of trade, monopoly behaviour and rent seeking. It's an FTC matter.
• arduinomancer 6y ago
  Why is Apple's revenue here even percentage-based at all? It makes zero sense. According to Apple they need this revenue cut because of the cost of keeping the platform running. If I offer a subscription in my app for 1$/month vs 10$/month what marginal expense is being incurred that apple deserves an extra $2.70 for the higher price?
  • detaro 6y ago
    Do you price your subscriptions purely by the marginal expense of serving the content/service to another customer? Or do you price them according to what the market will pay for your product?
    • sukilot 6y ago
      Totally different. The goal here is to maximize my profit and minimize my expenses.
      • detaro 6y ago
        Then don't be surprised that Apple works to maximize their profits too. Which neatly answers the question why Apple does pricing like that.
      • TulliusCicero 6y ago
        Do you think that isn't the goal for Apple?
      • thrwyoilarticle 6y ago
        It's not different, both are price discrimination. If they cut the price for the expensive products' apps, they'll have to raise it for the inexpensive products' apps. If the inexpensive products can't afford it, they won't have an app.
  • jedberg 6y ago
    This is my big problem with it too. The cost of maintaining the app store and the search is the same no matter what the app is. It should be a fixed fee. On the other hand the argument is that all the $0 apps are being subsidized by the paid apps, so they went percentage based so that the cheap apps didn't have a huge fee. It would mean the cheapest paid apps in the app store would be a lot more to absorb the fixed cost, or if they shared it evenly, then there would be no free apps.
• nodamage 6y ago
  While I agree that Apple should probably relax their rules, this list of "exceptions" is not particularly compelling. The majority of them are companion apps for physical products/memberships for which the rules around in-app purchases do not apply: Tesla, Soho House, Wells Fargo, Blue Cross / Blue Shield, WeWork. Github has a free tier and doesn't require a paying membership to use. Netflix is a digital content app for which there is a specific exemption under rule 3.1.3(a). Bloomberg and Salesforce might also fall under the 3.1.3(a) exemption for "access to professional databases", I'm not sure. App Store Connect is their own app. Apple's apps have always been able to use private APIs and do other things the rest of us can't. The only other app in this list that is actually similar to Hey in terms of product type and monetization is Fastmail. (And it looks like Fastmail was recently asked to add IAP to their app as well.) The rules around in-app purchases have been well known for a long time (by iOS devs at least, clearly not by the general public or even tech people). Releasing an app that does not follow the rules and then publicly complaining when it is inevitably rejected is starting to seem more like a guerrilla marketing tactic more than anything else. (And a clever one too, I don't think yet-another-email-app would have gotten nearly the same amount of press coverage that this has.)
  • gruez 6y ago
    >While I agree that Apple should probably relax their rules, this list of "exceptions" is not particularly compelling. Yeah, the first few items on the list were relatively convincing, but the convincing-ness takes a nosedive further down the list. I mean, who in their right mind would compare hey to a companion app for a car?
    • SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
      It's not about that. It's about the VP's explanation being disingenuous. Apple's issue isn't that the app doesn't work, despite their claim. It's that they can't collect money. They should just be honest.
      • nodamage 6y ago
        I agree that's a crappy explanation by the VP but that's not the actual reason for the rejection.
• seph-reed 6y ago
  Extortion is lucrative. If you're ever trying to get super rich, you're going to have to "crack a few eggs." As in: be an extortionist. That's what "cracking eggs" means.
• screwycaboose 6y ago
  Seems like a lot of these examples are intentionally ignoring the rules that allow them as exceptions just to build up a bigger strawman: * Netflix: Reader app (reader is a special Apple exception for movies/tv, books, news... mass-market media) * Github: Offers a free tier * App store connect: I mean come on, it's an Apple dev tool * Tesla: exception for physical goods Basecamp/Hey knew this was going to happen. It's a wonderful marketing campaign for them. Apple has zero incentive to change this. The buzz around it is niche and they'd lose countless dollars if they opened the door for exceptions. Basecamp knows this. Also, where has Basecamp been for the decade prior? Funny how they're propping this as some rightgeous issue when it suddenly impacts their bottom line.
  • dan-robertson 6y ago
    > Also, where has Basecamp been for the decade prior? Funny how they're propping this as some rightgeous issue when it suddenly impacts their bottom line. I think they testified in the US Congress about Apple’s practices recently
    • screwycaboose 6y ago
      Recently enough that they happened to be working on Hey at the same time.
      • DangitBobby 6y ago
        Your point being?
  • zem 6y ago
    the best time to complain about apple was ten years ago. the second best time is now.
• mmglr 6y ago
  Sorry to change the conversation- but how is HEY any different from maintaining a whitelist? For example iCloud has had the VIP feature for a few years now which I use without issue. This is the 4th or 5th article on HN I have seen talking about HEY and Apple. It's almost like this is a marketing ploy.
• donatj 6y ago
  Our app requires users to log in and a multi-thousand-dollar membership. No IAP option as pricing requires working with a sales person and a quote. Yet to have an issue, hope it stays that way.
• kgc 6y ago
  Apple has an exception for when the product is purchased as a physical good or service. (Tesla and SOHO House in the example list)
• divbzero 6y ago
  > WeWork — Allows in-app sign up? > No, but you can view slow tracking shots of change-agents and disruptors. :)
• MrStonedOne 6y ago
  Think of a flee market. Lets say this flee market runs their own PoS system that tables can use, they require all sales happen via this PoS system "to protect customers from hacking", and they charge a percentage for providing this service, higher then normal under the guise that the transaction is being conducted on their property, they are "hosting" the "sale" under their roof, so they set the terms for it. Seems fair and good, ish Now lets say that they also own the city bank, and they are the only one allowed to take their bank's debit card as payment. Most people don't use the other, newer bank because everybody they know is using the flee markets bank as it was first. So if you want to take credit card payments you have to sale at the flee market. Is it still fair and good for them to continue to set all terms relating to how sales are conducted in a selfish way when they have a monopoly gained in part from first mover advantage? eh, maybe, maybe not. Now they say that if you sale any spare parts or consumables for a product that was originally sold at the flee market, you must only do so at the flee market. Is it still fair and good for them to use the fact that the transaction is happening on their property to set higher fees on these follow up transactions when they require these follow up transactions to happen on their property? While exploiting a first mover advantage that causes more of the initial transactions to happen on their property? Never forget that you can't just look at each piece, the whole matters too. Each individual piece of the macro is ethically an "eh" at most, but the whole is a bit more then "eh"
  • 1123581321 6y ago
    This is pedantic, but it’s “flea market.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flea_market https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flea_market
• frouge 6y ago
  We just need to realize that there is only have been two viable platform for apps since smartphones exists, and as such some decisions should not be in Apple/Google hands anymore at this point, some subjects should fall in the public space. 3.5 billion people are using smartphones today, and we shouldn't being told what to do by a few exec-dudes and their shareholder friends. If Basecamp wants to do publish an email app - it's not porn, it's not racism, it's not bad - and that iOS users also want it, Apple should not be in the way. I publish on the App Store and frankly I'm happy to benefit from the hosting / payments / search and I'm ok to pay a price for that - even if 30% is huge - but if some don't want that let them do what they want, it's not Apple to decide that anymore.
  • Sargos 6y ago
    Why is porn excluded? Should people not be allowed to install apps that deal with sex? If Apple does not allow sex apps then a significant chunk of the population will be denied access entirely to something because Apple doesn't approve of "those apps". Adults have the right to choose whether they want those apps or not.
• jlbnjmn 6y ago
  Beautifully designed website that communicates the issue at hand superbly. I wonder what grounds Apple thinks they have to do this? It really seems like an above the law scenario.
• surround 6y ago
  http://isThisYourPaperOnSingleServingSites.com http://isThisYourPaperOnSingleServingSites.com
• grumple 6y ago
  The most damning part of this is that you can’t sign up for Apple services in their own apps for those services.
• jbombadil 6y ago
  Legitimate question: assume I sell a service that costs $7. If I understand Apple's current restrictions I sell it for $10 on the app and for $7 on my website, correct? If so, can I put a banner on my app that says "hey, you can buy this on my website for $7?" (without any links to the website). Just inform the user of that fact.
  • mateusjatenee 6y ago
    No, you are required to use the same pricing on both platforms.
  • baddox 6y ago
    You can choose a higher price in your Apple app, but you can’t mention the price difference in the Apple app.
• reustle 6y ago
  I have no horse in this race, but it has been interesting to watch the conversations grow over the past few days on this topic. Some people are so pro-Apple on this, clearly ignoring some of the primary complaints (like no option to not use the App Store for distribution). As I get older, I can't help but wonder if these people are simply shareholders of Apple (or any company in a discussion like this). Is this good for society overall, to have such a strong financial incentive for so many people to willfully ignore the other side of important arguments?
  • pcwalton 6y ago
    There's no need to accuse people of being shills. Some people legitimately prefer walled gardens. (I'm not one of them, by the way: I'm 100% on the side of Hey.)
  • chrisseaton 6y ago
    > Is this good for society overall, to have such a strong financial incentive for so many people to willfully ignore the other side of important arguments? Ironically, you're wilfully ignoring the other side of the important argument, and telling yourself the lie that anyone who disagrees with you must be being paid to do so, rather than listening to them and thinking about why they may think that way through their own reasoning.
    • reustle 6y ago
      > and telling yourself the lie that anyone who disagrees with you must be being paid to do so I specifically said "can't help but wonder". It just crosses my mind, no assumptions are made.
• EamonnMR 6y ago
  Big companies like Netflix, Google, Tesla, etc don't have to play by the same rules that smaller developers do, and that shouldn't surprise anyone. What's interesting to me is that Basecamp seems to want to join that club, or thinks it already is.
• holoduke 6y ago
  iOS and the Playstore do not respect equality. low tier publishers are treated completely different than the bigger ones. if those stores would be real shoppingmalls they would have long be brought to court. Apple and Google play the game smart. consumers are happy and are not aware of the underlying ugliness of their business activities. smaller publishers / developers have a hard time making a voice against these unfair eco system aspects. so far nothing is changing. the top charts of both the Playstore and iOS consists of apps which are best for the business models Google and iOS have slightly different business models. but in the end of the day it's all about advertising, data collections and IAPs.
• toby- 6y ago
  Could somebody please explain this to me? I'm uncertain what this website is trying to demonstrate? Apps asking for signup first? I feel out of the loop. Apologies.
• TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  I am amazed how many people on HN are defending Apple. I had the naive assumption that my fellow tech savvy would denounce this. The comments here are eye-opening. It is as if a lot of people just don’t see or don’t care about monopoly or monopolistic behavior. The product is great, Apple is has the highest market cap of any company in the world, it’s founder has god-like status. What’s the problem?
  • maest 6y ago
    A lot of people on HN also defend anti-unionistic behaviour. It may sound unrelated but they're both the result of the American zeitgeist's blind commitment to free markets and unfettered capitalism. To be fair, it's worked well for the US economy (e.g. Silicon Valley) albeit at the cost of increasing the wealth gap and general "late-stage capitalism"-y behaviour.
  • screwycaboose 6y ago
    Because it's not a monopoly. Apple is roughly half of the marketshare in the US, and dramatically lower than that worldwide. They're also not saying that Hey can't be in their store, or even needs to pay them anything. Hey could offer a free tier and wouldn't owe Apple a dime. Basecamp already does this so they know it very well.
    • TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
      s/monopoly/anti-competitive
      • screwycaboose 6y ago
        Is it anti-competitive? Apple literally told them how they could reapply the app in a way where they would owe Apple $0. Which again, Basecamp already does. They know this is how it is and how to work around it, but they're pitching a fit because they don't want to do it. I'm a bit ornery about this because Basecamp is using the plight of other developers now only because it suits their bottom line. Where have they been for the past decade? They've been raking in money off the App store for years.
• unreal37 6y ago
  I think Apple is about to enter a multi-year anti-trust ordeal as Microsoft and other companies have before. Ironic that they used to be the small guy fighting against IBM, and now they're the big guy pushing their "largest company in the world" status around.
• ranci 6y ago
  I load the website and it doesn't work.
• wackget 6y ago
  Why doesn't this website have an introductory paragraph at the top explaining what we're looking at? Seriously, there's zero context to this information. I was able to infer an understanding from the context of the page but it's terrible to expect your readers to have to do that.
• 5Qn8mNbc2FNCiVV 6y ago
  I really don't understand how so many people cannot understand the simple fact that it's "Fuck you pay us 30% or you won't get on iphones". It's not "Hey you can use our store for 30% revenue cut and other benefits or you can market/host/whatever else it yourself". This is what they are comparing it with Google, idc what else shady stuff Google is doing but if I want my app on an android without paying Google a dime I can do so with the obvious disadvantage of not being in the store. This just doesn't exist with Apple. At all. It's as simple as that
  • dan-robertson 6y ago
    People can understand something and think that it’s immoral or that they don’t like it. The reason this thread has many replies is that people have strong opinions, not that they don’t understand. But also your first sentence is merely partly true. It isn’t a simple fact because it is selectively enforced. It comes with the caveat that if you’re big then probably the rules don’t apply so much to you
• WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
  This is a great list of apps that need 1 star reviews for not allowing you to sign up on the app - Me, right now. I wonder if I can automate the download and rate process.
• runamok 6y ago
  Is it possible to enable in app purchase at a higher rate exposing the "Apple Tax"? In this case show $129 for in app and $99 if you go to this website... Or is that against the TOS?
  • twicetwice 6y ago
    Yup, that's against the rules also.
• blackflame7000 6y ago
  Time for a phone maker that isn’t absurdly greedy or nosey.
• malwarebytess 6y ago
  I have to wonder about the health of the industry when rent-seeking becomes the norm. Rent-seeking stifles innovation and true growth, and is a sign of a degenerate system. >The reforms of Diocletian and Constantine made all productive activity impossible. The reason is not that there were no more large fortunes, but the foundation of their build-up was now no longer creative energy, or the discovery and bring into use new sources of wealth, or the improvement and development of husbandry, industry and commerce. It was, on the contrary, the cunning exploitation of a privileged position used to despoil people. https://medium.com/@guisebule/rise-of-the-rent-seeker-how-the-subscription-economy-hurts-startups-entrepreneurs-its-af48fe98e555 https://medium.com/@guisebule/rise-of-the-rent-seeker-how-th...
• botolo 6y ago
  I don't understand why some people think they have a right to be distributed for free within the App Store. This store is something Apple created and I think it's fair that they decide who can join and how. If you are a developer and you don't like this, then develop your app for Android. This is something similar to Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo asking for $$ from developers if they want to sell their games for these platforms.
• Shivetya 6y ago
  The Tesla app comparison is just dumb, facetious even. I had a similar app on my Volt but in the case of Tesla the app just works if you have the car whereas GM kept threatening to force you to buy into an Onstar subscription to continue using some features of the app; that would be something I could see Apple taking from.
• makecheck 6y ago
  I know this list focuses primarily on account-based apps but I would argue strongly that most pay-to-play games fall into this category. “Buying” a game for $0.99 that has repeatable in-app purchases in the hundreds or thousands is not “working” if you ask me. I would love to return to the days where games are “complete” at the time you buy them, with essentially no option to buy gems to make it actually work reasonably.
• radiantmonk 6y ago
  Quick question. Why was it a found this article on HN about an hour or so after it was first posted, but after 3 hours it is nowhere to be seen?
• grwthckrmstr 6y ago
  Seems like HN mods are flagging and removing anti-Apple posts from the front page. Why?
  • WillYouFinish 6y ago
    I was wondering about that, because I always thought, that HN was pretty open about everything and there wouldn’t be a lot of moderation or any at all. What is this? Facebook or Reddit?
• PeterStuer 6y ago
  Any app can be split into a free client and a paid subscription. This is exactly the same as any business can move all of its profits to be made in some tax haven. Just like in the latter, there is selective enforcement of the rules, leaving the most prominent corporations to carry on as they please while nailing the SME to the wall. Pretty sure it will come to a point where the ingress of paid content into an app will be taxed, regardless of where the payment was made, and that this policy will be introduced by both Apple and Google.
• Zanneth 6y ago
  One point that is always conspicuously absent from all of these kinds of discussions is a reflection on the actual value that Apple is providing for apps that are hosted on the AppStore. In the modern day software ecosystem, it is far too easy to take everything for granted and assume that all of these big companies like Apple, Google, and Amazon are all building software platforms for developers out of the good of their hearts. The reality is, these companies are all profit-driven, and the only reason why Apple for instance invests billions of dollars every year into the SDK is because there is a mutually beneficial relationship that exists between them and the developers. Of course all developers want an ecosystem where they can develop their own software for the devices that they and their customers use without restrictions. However, the developer community should be careful to not become too complacent and expect that Apple and other companies are just going to give them everything that they want for free. If the technology industry wants to get serious about building free and open platforms, then we should start focusing on supporting projects like the Librem[1] smartphone which are built with open-source ideals in mind. [1] https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/ https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/
• rudyrigot 6y ago
  Am I the only one to feel like the Hey people are basically having a faked marketing-driven temper tantrum? Not to say that Apple applies their rules fairly (I wouldn’t really know, but I’m willing to trust there are issues). Just that each communication I see from Hey feels entitled and self-dramatizing. It doesn’t feel like they’re helping their own case...
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]