screwycaboose

4 ms·

1.
by 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
2.
by screwycaboose 6y ago
Recently enough that they happened to be working on Hey at the same time.
3.
by screwycaboose 6y ago
Last year in front of Congress (while actively developing this new product). They never mentioned it despite Basecamp being in the app store for years and paying Apple $0. The "oh my this is shocking and unfair" act is all a ruse.
4.
by 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 co
5.
by screwycaboose 6y ago
Probably could be a lot less than $43/mo if Basecamp didn't feel the need to spend 7 figures on a domain. They're not filling some massive need; it's yet another email service. If they can't justify it at $142 a yea
6.
by 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-mar
7.
by screwycaboose 6y ago
it's only 30% of the first year if you allow subscriptions in app, then 15% the following years
8.
by screwycaboose 6y ago
There is a difference. Subscriptions only pay 30% of the first year. Every year after drops to 15%.