5 ms·
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 wo
by 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 agoIt'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 agoNetflix is a "free" app.
- ksec 6y agoThe point of this website is precisely to show there are apps labeled as free but requires additional paying membership to use it.
- hyperpape 6y agoThis 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.
- gpanders 6y agoThe app is free, the service is not. No ambiguity here.
- truculent 6y agoI am not really invested in either party but this comment is plainly wrong. They aren’t using the free label to market their service any more than Netflix, Tesla or any of the other apps in OPs link
- zem 6y agothe app is free. it's not a hey account, it's an app that lets you access your hey account from an iphone. the account itself has no dependence on the app.
- derefr 6y agoRight. Enlightenment can come from imagining the app and the service as separate companies, i.e. the app being some third-party client for the service. The app, in such a case, clearly does not cost money. It's free. It just doesn't do much if you don't have the service; just like pet toys don't do much if you don't have a pet.
- donarb 6y agoIt actually does. You cannot use a regular email application to access your email on Hey, they don't use POP/IMAP.
- aidenn0 6y ago1. Fastmail has been asked to allow in-app sign-ups and they do use POP/IMAP. 2. Hey can be accessed via HTTP, so it's not app only.
- preinheimer 6y agoYou're catching some flak here, but I think it's a fair point. It says "free", but all you get for free is... an icon on your home page and a login screen. Apple could solve this by allowing a "Free, account required" descriptor/category for Netflix/Dropbox/etc/etc. So "Free" is a lie, but one many other apps have used beforehand.
- 1123581321 6y agoExcellent suggestion that would allow both companies to save face.
- pfranz 6y agoI think Apple solved this issue years ago because they got flack about "Free" apps that would have in-app purchases. Apps are not marked "Free" in the App Store. Instead it simply says "Get" to download the app. They could add a "requires account" tag like they have "in-app purchases" but I don't think that would satisfy what Apple is looking for here (money).
- baddox 6y agoIt’s worth noting that courts and legal systems generally don’t work like that either. There are some examples of weird loopholes due to some specific wording of a law and things like that, but in general you can’t just get the best of the legal system because you “technically” did such and such. For example, you can’t scam someone by having a contract with extremely small print that they technically signed.
- rsync 6y agoMy favorite example of this was the attempt, by the Hunt Brothers, to "corner" the silver market in 1979/1980: "But on January 7, 1980, in response to the Hunts' accumulation, the exchange rules regarding leverage were changed, when COMEX adopted "Silver Rule 7" placing heavy restrictions on the purchase of commodities on margin. The Hunt brothers had borrowed heavily to finance their purchases, and, as the price began to fall again, dropping over 50% in just four days, they were unable to meet their obligations, causing panic in the markets." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Thursday https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Thursday