6 ms·

I'm glad Hey now has a future on the App Store – it's better than not existing at all, but the whole episode has been absurd. This new version introduces a new

I'm glad Hey now has a future on the App Store – it's better than not existing at all, but the whole episode has been absurd. This new version introduces a new free option for the iOS app. Now users can sign up directly in-app for a free, temporary, randomized @hey.com email address that works for 14 days. Think of it like a temporary SIM card you buy when traveling. Or for when you don’t want to give out your real email address, like a short term “for sale” listing, like Craigslist does it. This, in particular, is just ridiculous. A whole new feature, designed and developed in haste over a weekend, simply to satisfy Apple. But then we've had to do that ourselves in our own apps, and no doubt thousands of other devs have their own stories.

intopieces 6y ago
Which is a better user experience: the new implementation, or the original?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- braythwayt 6y ago
  TFA says, "A win for Apple, a win for us, and a win for our customers." Basecamp appears be saying that the new implementation offers a better user experience.
  - adamlett 6y ago
    The win for them is that they get to update their app instead of being booted from the app store.
- jbigelow76 6y ago
  I suppose if you've been sitting on the sidelines since 1971 to see if this whole "e-mail thing" was a fad or not, and currently don't have an email address, a 14 day trial with some rando address might be just what you're looking for. Now if only you had some one to email...
scarface74 6y ago
Why is it ridiculous? Who wants an app that you can’t do anything with when you download it? Even Office for iOS lets you view documents without paying and then you need a subscription to edit them. Name one retailer that lets you hock your product in their store without paying anything?
- adrianhon 6y ago
  The reason the app didn't work when you downloaded it is because of Apple's own policies. Also: https://youdownloadtheappanditdoesntwork.com https://youdownloadtheappanditdoesntwork.com
  - scarface74 6y ago
    And BaseCamp was free to offer in app purchases at a 43% markup to make up for the 30% cut. BaseCamp is not a non profit anymore than Apple is.
    - mugsie 6y ago
      Can you? I am pretty sure that the rules about IAP make it very clear you have to charge the same price on and off the app store.
      - scarface74 6y ago
        No it doesn’t. In fact, when Spotify was still allowing in app purchases, they did exactly this. https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/8/8913105/spotify-apple-app-store-email https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/8/8913105/spotify-apple-app-...
      - pwinnski 6y ago
        That was Apple's initial attempt, but the pushback was fast and furious. Spotify, especially, led the charge that this was ridiculous and Apple relented pretty quickly, IIRC. Now you can charge more to cover their 30%.
zepto 6y ago
It’s not “simply to satisfy Apple”. The rule is so that Apps people download provide functionality you can at the very least try out. This is about providing a consistent user experience, and a consistent user experience is why people trust the store and actually download things from it.
- ryandrake 6y ago
  It should be about both: Following your distributor's rules and providing the good user experience of an app that doesn't immediately demand a login when you launch it. Back when I was working at an iOS developer, our leadership brain trust decided that the next version of our app should require the user to log in, or sign up for an account, and not let the user move forward unless they did so. I advised against this because, 1. Apple generally forbids the practice, 2. It's an unnecessary roadblock to getting into the app (having an account provided optional benefits), and 3. The engineering effort, plus the effort to rework later once Apple rejects it, was not worth it. I was unconvincing, so we did the work, submitted to the App Store, and lo and behold, it was rejected, and we had to scramble to re-work a "skip the login" function (in 6 point gray-on-black text) link into the flow. sigh This was almost a decade ago. I guess my point is that this whole episode, fair or not, was totally predictable and avoidable. I bet that Hey had engineers internally shouting for the hills to not do this, who were being ignored. Maybe the company's leadership just wanted to pick a fight with Apple. Who would want to start such a fight, I don't know? If you're not a behemoth then there are only two possible ways that fight ends: 1. tears and engineering re-work, or 2. App Store banishment. It's just not worth it. Or maybe it is worth it if you're an exec and it's not your time being wasted but some poor engineer working over the weekend to scramble for a fix.
awinder 6y ago
I may just be under-knowledgable of App Store practices but -- how much of this could charitably have to do with how can Apple confirm / accept apps that they can't test? With onboard payments they could fake charges and get into the app functionality, but without it and without any free content how can they do that? Or if you're Hey, are you able to specify credentials for Apple testing?
- xuki 6y ago
  For apps like Hey, you must provide credentials for approval.
- dvdhnt 6y ago
  Well, when I worked for an enterprise health app that required an outside contract with employers, Apple required a valid login for testing. So, we gave them one. Surely, Hey did the same.

intopieces 6y ago

Which is a better user experience: the new implementation, or the original?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
braythwayt 6y ago
TFA says, "A win for Apple, a win for us, and a win for our customers." Basecamp appears be saying that the new implementation offers a better user experience.
- adamlett 6y ago
  The win for them is that they get to update their app instead of being booted from the app store.
jbigelow76 6y ago
I suppose if you've been sitting on the sidelines since 1971 to see if this whole "e-mail thing" was a fad or not, and currently don't have an email address, a 14 day trial with some rando address might be just what you're looking for. Now if only you had some one to email...

scarface74 6y ago

Why is it ridiculous? Who wants an app that you can’t do anything with when you download it? Even Office for iOS lets you view documents without paying and then you need a subscription to edit them. Name one retailer that lets you hock your product in their store without paying anything?

adrianhon 6y ago
The reason the app didn't work when you downloaded it is because of Apple's own policies. Also: https://youdownloadtheappanditdoesntwork.com https://youdownloadtheappanditdoesntwork.com
- scarface74 6y ago
  And BaseCamp was free to offer in app purchases at a 43% markup to make up for the 30% cut. BaseCamp is not a non profit anymore than Apple is.
  - mugsie 6y ago
    Can you? I am pretty sure that the rules about IAP make it very clear you have to charge the same price on and off the app store.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      No it doesn’t. In fact, when Spotify was still allowing in app purchases, they did exactly this. https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/8/8913105/spotify-apple-app-store-email https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/8/8913105/spotify-apple-app-...
    - pwinnski 6y ago
      That was Apple's initial attempt, but the pushback was fast and furious. Spotify, especially, led the charge that this was ridiculous and Apple relented pretty quickly, IIRC. Now you can charge more to cover their 30%.

zepto 6y ago

It’s not “simply to satisfy Apple”. The rule is so that Apps people download provide functionality you can at the very least try out. This is about providing a consistent user experience, and a consistent user experience is why people trust the store and actually download things from it.

ryandrake 6y ago
It should be about both: Following your distributor's rules and providing the good user experience of an app that doesn't immediately demand a login when you launch it. Back when I was working at an iOS developer, our leadership brain trust decided that the next version of our app should require the user to log in, or sign up for an account, and not let the user move forward unless they did so. I advised against this because, 1. Apple generally forbids the practice, 2. It's an unnecessary roadblock to getting into the app (having an account provided optional benefits), and 3. The engineering effort, plus the effort to rework later once Apple rejects it, was not worth it. I was unconvincing, so we did the work, submitted to the App Store, and lo and behold, it was rejected, and we had to scramble to re-work a "skip the login" function (in 6 point gray-on-black text) link into the flow. sigh This was almost a decade ago. I guess my point is that this whole episode, fair or not, was totally predictable and avoidable. I bet that Hey had engineers internally shouting for the hills to not do this, who were being ignored. Maybe the company's leadership just wanted to pick a fight with Apple. Who would want to start such a fight, I don't know? If you're not a behemoth then there are only two possible ways that fight ends: 1. tears and engineering re-work, or 2. App Store banishment. It's just not worth it. Or maybe it is worth it if you're an exec and it's not your time being wasted but some poor engineer working over the weekend to scramble for a fix.

awinder 6y ago

I may just be under-knowledgable of App Store practices but -- how much of this could charitably have to do with how can Apple confirm / accept apps that they can't test? With onboard payments they could fake charges and get into the app functionality, but without it and without any free content how can they do that? Or if you're Hey, are you able to specify credentials for Apple testing?

xuki 6y ago
For apps like Hey, you must provide credentials for approval.
dvdhnt 6y ago
Well, when I worked for an enterprise health app that required an outside contract with employers, Apple required a valid login for testing. So, we gave them one. Surely, Hey did the same.