Great PR move by Hey. Not sure there's much more to it, tho. He's basically saying "yeah, we broke the rules - but they're doing it too!", just like a driver caught speeding tries to point out that red Corvette that the cops didn't pull over 5 minutes ago.
Apple does have a rule about providing an in-app purchase option, although I believe they don’t require that be the only way to make the purchase.
I think Apple tries to distinguish between apps that provide access to content which you subscribe to (so-called “Reader” apps) versus apps where the service is the app itself.
If the service is the app itself, then they want all apps to be sold directly through the App Store. If the app is a Reader for a content subscription, then they allow selling the content subscription separately.
I’m not sure it’s evenly enforced, but I think that’s their intent and stated policy which they are trying to enforce here.
I mean, if you read the full tweet thread, it says they broke rule 3.1.1, and 3.1.3(b)
Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multiplatform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app.
Basically Apple says if you're offering a multi-platform service - which this e-mail client clearly is - then you must provide the option to buy the service in the App using apple's in-app purchase system.
There’s myriad examples of non-reader subscription based apps where Apple allows the app in the App Store. Basecamp’s actual “Basecamp” app being one example!
Apple are bullies. By submitting your app you accept to be bullied. By using their apps you accept to be bullied. By buying their hardware you accept to be bullied. The rule they are breaking is not accepting their bullying.
That's why parents had to sue them to get refunds on fraudulent in-app purchases as children were scammed and manipulated into tapping buy buttons again and again. That's why Macbook Pro owners had to sue them again and again to address product defects. That's why they're being investigated in both the EU and US for abusing their platforms. They even officially had a rule for iOS developers that threatened against talking to the press.
If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps.
YMMV on that - personally, I've gotten pretty decent support for my Apple hardware. For example, in one case, they completely replaced a laptop that had gone out of repair support with a new model that was supported. I don't like the butterfly keyboard, but they replaced it twice and gave me a third-revision model that has worked fine since.
In addition to macOS, I use Linux (in a VM) and Windows (both VM and native) on my Apple hardware, and they all work fine.
It's going to work even more in the future as antitrust cases start piling up. The EU court could even use this instance as a demonstration of monopolistic gatekeeping.
This isn't awesome for Apple, PR wise, as next week they are expected to announce the Mac moving to ARM. "Come on! Bring your apps! What do you mean you don't want to invest in porting? What do you mean you're scared of our App Store policies?"
You should port your apps because you think it's in your financial interest. The fact that there's some drama with one random app breaking the rules shouldn't factor.
This isn't one app. Thousands of companies have been shaken down this way. It's just that they usually let the big guys slide. They probably underestimated Basecamp, thinking that they were small enough to bully.
Apple has terrible backward compatibility and outsources a lot of engineering work onto its developers just to maintain compatibility in the face of yearly software-breaking iOS releases.
Game developers on other platforms (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo) don't have that support burden.
It seems to me there’s a double standard for some apps; Apple’s logic here is ridiculous.
I can’t sign up for “Microsoft 365 Home“ or “Personal” inside of Microsoft Word for iOS or any other Microsoft app, but Apple still approves them without this mandate.
It was for ProtonMail though. Inconsistency among app reviewers are going to be a reality forever because they're human. They just need to have processes for appealing it to someone higher up so mistakes can be corrected (which they do).
Apple knows that they have more to lose if they suddenly remove Microsoft Office or any long-standing apps that lots of people know about and rely on.
With a new player however, there are not enough users on it to even make a dent in Apple's reputation - the masses don't even have a clue as to what "Hey" is and won't suddenly consider Android because Hey is not available on iOS.
This behavior is nasty and regulation is more than welcome here, but makes sense from a business point of view.
I'm not sure I believe the reasoning that the author describes - they're an email app on top of their email service. That's all that was blocked; but, I wonder if the problem here was marketing.
Assuming Hey followed standard email service protocol, users of Hey could absolutely use the Apple Mail app to connect to their email servers, so it shouldn't be about that, unless they marketed too hard, or something.
I probably can't use any POP server in the GMail app, for example.
I suspect they marketed too hard and too loudly about how they're totally not email "and here, you can buy in" and that tipped someone in the review process off and then a review that doesn't hold up to greater scrutiny was made. The greater problem is probably the refusal to re-review it.
All the decrying about "going against one of Apple's businesses" seems like punching at the air. Apple probably doesn't care whether people have an iCloud email address or not.
That makes Apple's stance more clear, then. Do they reference paying for anything anywhere in the app? They might want to take a play out of Kindle's book here. edit: if they haven't already.
No, please refer to all the ink spilled on this already. They were very careful to avoid references to paying anything in the app anywhere, or linking to anywhere where payment could be made. This was always the rule previously.
It's not just HEY: other developers are now reporting that Apple's grip is tightening and starting to enforce this change. You can no longer provide access to any service without submitting to Apple's tax, unless (1) you are a "reader" app or (2) you only sell to businesses (i.e., the user cannot pay for the app).
I have to say—while I consider Apple's practices terribly anti-competitive and user-hostile, and I want to applaud anyone who makes a stink about them... I feel quite uncomfortable about this being the poster child.
I totally agree with DHH, Jason, and Hey here. While I may understand why Apple would require them to use IaP if they allowed in-app payments, they aren't in this case.
However, the pact of Basecamp's heads moving to Android and away from Apple's ecosystem would surely be insignificant. Even PR-wise, it's a fun storm, but it's still in a glass of water.
As a user, I am generally in favor of Apple requiring the option to purchase items and subscriptions through the App Store. I would never subscribe to, for example, HBO NOW if I thought I’d have to go through HBO (owned by AT&T) in order to unsubscribe. I want the guarantee of easy cancellation.
I am also fine with Apple collecting a modest fee for providing that service. That fee should probably be somewhere in the 2-3% range. Demanding what amounts to a 30% “introducer fee” is beyond absurd.
I also do not approve of how inconsistently Apple enforces their own rules.
I would never subscribe to, for example, HBO NOW if I thought I’d have to go through HBO (owned by AT&T) in order to unsubscribe. I want the guarantee of easy cancellation.
Maybe it is just me but as long as I can cancel the subscription on a mobile website or a desktop website without talking or calling anyone, I really really don’t care.
Also the fact that I rarely have to do these subscribing/unsubscribing.
I am also fine with Apple collecting a modest fee for providing that service. That fee should probably be somewhere in the 2-3% range.
Apple's cut isn't for payment processing, even if developers insist that's all they do. It's for access to their marketplace and their very large user base.
To me it seems more like paying for shelf space, and iTunes is probably a lot cheaper than what you used to pay for physical shelf space. However, physical games (and downloads) for the Switch (or other game systems) cost a lot more than 99 cent games for the iPhone and iPad.
But Apple does sell paid search/advertising results.
Exactly. Apple as a market leader selling access, has monopoly over its own market, and is obliged to compete fairly when it distributes apps to that market. That's why the antitrust cases' result is pretty obvious even now.
It's cyclic - the developers wouldn't have been able to build software for the iPhone if Apple hadn't developed the iPhone and the App store in the first place. But the App Store would be useless (see Windows Phone et al.) if there were no software in it.
It is for processing payments, and for doing it in such a way that users are comfortable making payments.
It's for curating the marketplace and designing the OS to safeguard information, so that users can trust the apps they install.
It is for developing the features that serve as the backbone of the apps that developers create---cloud storage, augmented reality, machine learning, high performance graphics, cryptography, peer-to-peer networking.
Of course we can imagine different business models. This one certainly has negative tradeoffs. But I think developers get a great deal for the 30% tax, and the formula has undeniably been successful in producing a marketplace where users are more comfortable spending money---the App Store has nearly double the revenue of Google Play, with a fifth the market share.
(To me, the $99 developer fee seems more to do with anti-fraud than anything. With that you get two professional technical support incidents, almost guaranteed to cost Apple more than $99 in wages.)
Clearly, though, Apple's rules incentivized developers to handle payments outside the App Store, and now they're upset that they've created a situation where they're getting a 0% cut. And undoubtedly it hurts the user experience when you can't sign up on-device.
Those things are all true, but fundamentally their share isn't about any specific API or "service" they provide on the platform. That they do all those things makes it an attractive place to sell your product. But the basic reason is that they've amassed a large number of highly valuable users who are willing to spend money on apps on their marketplace.
I am torn. I like the in app payment and subscription systems easy to use and manage and trustworthy, no run around if a later I want to cancel a subscription, good stuff for the consumer.
I do think their 30% cut is excessive but they provide a lot a value with it, not sure what number would be acceptable to developers in order to just use it, part of me thinks they should just take no cut and make all their money by dominating phone sales.
The real problem here is complicated rules that are inconsistently enforced, and changing their minds later, that really screws over developers.
It would be trivial to solve by still requiring the IAP, but allowing developers to inform the user that another price is available on the web.
You'd still get the convenience of subscribing through the app if you want it (and paying more for it), but you'd be aware of the alternative. After all, if Apple defends their policies as user protection, they shouldn't be opposed to more information being given.
Apple is a clear monopoly that does not provide consumer value. Monopolies are bad for free markets. It should be broken up. Meaning, they should be forced to allow non-apple markets on their hardware.
I'm not sure it's fair to say that 'Apple is trying to shut down hey' as it sounds like that same situation hasn't affected any other apps before. Apple is choosing to enforce their terms (which you can disagree with - i think charging 30% is way too much) and that is about it. A lot of other apps have faced the same situation before and only certain ones have managed to fall into the specific 'readers' exemption.
I'm also a bit surprised that a team like the one I guess hey has, did not see this coming, as it's pretty clear in the apple store terms and anybody with some iOS and app store publishing experience would have been concerned about that from day 1.
Just curious, is there anything that can prevent developers to charge 30% more when in-app purchase is used for sign-up, with a nice little text around the 'Buy' button:
You would get 30% discount if you use our website for purchase. Here the price includes Apple payment infrastructure cost.
I'm sure there would not be anything in Apple's guideline documents about adding above kind of 'informative' content.
Great PR move by Hey. Not sure there's much more to it, tho. He's basically saying "yeah, we broke the rules - but they're doing it too!", just like a driver caught speeding tries to point out that red Corvette that the cops didn't pull over 5 minutes ago.
This is not even a remotely correct reading of what happened here.
They did not break any rules. Its perfectly valid to use an account with a subscription not created in an app (and no ability to do it).
Apple does have a rule about providing an in-app purchase option, although I believe they don’t require that be the only way to make the purchase.
I think Apple tries to distinguish between apps that provide access to content which you subscribe to (so-called “Reader” apps) versus apps where the service is the app itself.
If the service is the app itself, then they want all apps to be sold directly through the App Store. If the app is a Reader for a content subscription, then they allow selling the content subscription separately.
I’m not sure it’s evenly enforced, but I think that’s their intent and stated policy which they are trying to enforce here.
What rule did they break?
I mean, if you read the full tweet thread, it says they broke rule 3.1.1, and 3.1.3(b)
Basically Apple says if you're offering a multi-platform service - which this e-mail client clearly is - then you must provide the option to buy the service in the App using apple's in-app purchase system.
Why does my Kindle app work, then? Last I checked, I couldn't buy new Kindle books on my iPhone at all
Because it's a Reader and in the same ToS, there's a caveat for "Readers".
There’s myriad examples of non-reader subscription based apps where Apple allows the app in the App Store. Basecamp’s actual “Basecamp” app being one example!
Apple are bullies. By submitting your app you accept to be bullied. By using their apps you accept to be bullied. By buying their hardware you accept to be bullied. The rule they are breaking is not accepting their bullying.
That's why parents had to sue them to get refunds on fraudulent in-app purchases as children were scammed and manipulated into tapping buy buttons again and again. That's why Macbook Pro owners had to sue them again and again to address product defects. That's why they're being investigated in both the EU and US for abusing their platforms. They even officially had a rule for iOS developers that threatened against talking to the press.
https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer...
I thought you were paraphrasing, at first. I was surprised to find you were quoting it verbatim.
Probably worth reading the whole 2014 page in context, as well as the current (2020) version.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
YMMV on that - personally, I've gotten pretty decent support for my Apple hardware. For example, in one case, they completely replaced a laptop that had gone out of repair support with a new model that was supported. I don't like the butterfly keyboard, but they replaced it twice and gave me a third-revision model that has worked fine since.
In addition to macOS, I use Linux (in a VM) and Windows (both VM and native) on my Apple hardware, and they all work fine.
Apple always says, "Bashing our app review process in the press doesn't work."
It always works.
If they go through the trouble of stating it, it bugs them, so it is probably very effective.
Exactly. In most cases, it is the only thing that works. Unfortunately, most people don't have the reach to get their story out there and viral.
It's going to work even more in the future as antitrust cases start piling up. The EU court could even use this instance as a demonstration of monopolistic gatekeeping.
This isn't awesome for Apple, PR wise, as next week they are expected to announce the Mac moving to ARM. "Come on! Bring your apps! What do you mean you don't want to invest in porting? What do you mean you're scared of our App Store policies?"
You should port your apps because you think it's in your financial interest. The fact that there's some drama with one random app breaking the rules shouldn't factor.
This isn't one app. Thousands of companies have been shaken down this way. It's just that they usually let the big guys slide. They probably underestimated Basecamp, thinking that they were small enough to bully.
It’s not just one app. Considering that it wants 15-30%, it really conflicts with the financial interests part.
What store doesn't take 15-30%?
what platform ONLY let's you install apps through it's official store?
Can anyone upload a app to the nintendo store?
Apple has terrible backward compatibility and outsources a lot of engineering work onto its developers just to maintain compatibility in the face of yearly software-breaking iOS releases.
Game developers on other platforms (Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo) don't have that support burden.
It seems to me there’s a double standard for some apps; Apple’s logic here is ridiculous.
I can’t sign up for “Microsoft 365 Home“ or “Personal” inside of Microsoft Word for iOS or any other Microsoft app, but Apple still approves them without this mandate.
I think Basecamp is in the right here.
That's not the case. You can sign up for Office 365 through IAP.
https://twitter.com/sandofsky/status/1273010912484446209
Seems like the Newton email app is not being enforced through the rule.
It was for ProtonMail though. Inconsistency among app reviewers are going to be a reality forever because they're human. They just need to have processes for appealing it to someone higher up so mistakes can be corrected (which they do).
https://twitter.com/Abjurato/status/1273151302361649159
(in the case of Hey, Apple said it had reviewed the decision internally)
Apple knows that they have more to lose if they suddenly remove Microsoft Office or any long-standing apps that lots of people know about and rely on.
With a new player however, there are not enough users on it to even make a dent in Apple's reputation - the masses don't even have a clue as to what "Hey" is and won't suddenly consider Android because Hey is not available on iOS.
This behavior is nasty and regulation is more than welcome here, but makes sense from a business point of view.
I'm not sure I believe the reasoning that the author describes - they're an email app on top of their email service. That's all that was blocked; but, I wonder if the problem here was marketing.
Assuming Hey followed standard email service protocol, users of Hey could absolutely use the Apple Mail app to connect to their email servers, so it shouldn't be about that, unless they marketed too hard, or something.
I probably can't use any POP server in the GMail app, for example.
I suspect they marketed too hard and too loudly about how they're totally not email "and here, you can buy in" and that tipped someone in the review process off and then a review that doesn't hold up to greater scrutiny was made. The greater problem is probably the refusal to re-review it.
All the decrying about "going against one of Apple's businesses" seems like punching at the air. Apple probably doesn't care whether people have an iCloud email address or not.
They didn't. https://hey.com/faqs/#can-i-check-my-hey-email-with-my-exist...
Oh.
That makes Apple's stance more clear, then. Do they reference paying for anything anywhere in the app? They might want to take a play out of Kindle's book here. edit: if they haven't already.
No. That's the point.
No, please refer to all the ink spilled on this already. They were very careful to avoid references to paying anything in the app anywhere, or linking to anywhere where payment could be made. This was always the rule previously.
It's not just HEY: other developers are now reporting that Apple's grip is tightening and starting to enforce this change. You can no longer provide access to any service without submitting to Apple's tax, unless (1) you are a "reader" app or (2) you only sell to businesses (i.e., the user cannot pay for the app).
I have to say—while I consider Apple's practices terribly anti-competitive and user-hostile, and I want to applaud anyone who makes a stink about them... I feel quite uncomfortable about this being the poster child.
I know that DHH has always been a big Apple fan. Between the Apple credit card drama and this, how long before he publicly moves to another platform?
While I have no idea if it's a significant number, I've heard a few anecdotal accounts of how Rails was the cause for many to buy their first MacBook.
I totally agree with DHH, Jason, and Hey here. While I may understand why Apple would require them to use IaP if they allowed in-app payments, they aren't in this case.
However, the pact of Basecamp's heads moving to Android and away from Apple's ecosystem would surely be insignificant. Even PR-wise, it's a fun storm, but it's still in a glass of water.
As a user, I am generally in favor of Apple requiring the option to purchase items and subscriptions through the App Store. I would never subscribe to, for example, HBO NOW if I thought I’d have to go through HBO (owned by AT&T) in order to unsubscribe. I want the guarantee of easy cancellation.
I am also fine with Apple collecting a modest fee for providing that service. That fee should probably be somewhere in the 2-3% range. Demanding what amounts to a 30% “introducer fee” is beyond absurd.
I also do not approve of how inconsistently Apple enforces their own rules.
Maybe it is just me but as long as I can cancel the subscription on a mobile website or a desktop website without talking or calling anyone, I really really don’t care.
Also the fact that I rarely have to do these subscribing/unsubscribing.
Apple's cut isn't for payment processing, even if developers insist that's all they do. It's for access to their marketplace and their very large user base.
Pretty ironic for a company that sells you that you're not the product being sold.
To me it seems more like paying for shelf space, and iTunes is probably a lot cheaper than what you used to pay for physical shelf space. However, physical games (and downloads) for the Switch (or other game systems) cost a lot more than 99 cent games for the iPhone and iPad.
But Apple does sell paid search/advertising results.
Exactly. Apple as a market leader selling access, has monopoly over its own market, and is obliged to compete fairly when it distributes apps to that market. That's why the antitrust cases' result is pretty obvious even now.
The irony of this is that they have a marketplace and very large user base exactly because of the developers that have built for their platform.
It's cyclic - the developers wouldn't have been able to build software for the iPhone if Apple hadn't developed the iPhone and the App store in the first place. But the App Store would be useless (see Windows Phone et al.) if there were no software in it.
Cyclic?
More accurately: Checkmate.
It is for processing payments, and for doing it in such a way that users are comfortable making payments.
It's for curating the marketplace and designing the OS to safeguard information, so that users can trust the apps they install.
It is for developing the features that serve as the backbone of the apps that developers create---cloud storage, augmented reality, machine learning, high performance graphics, cryptography, peer-to-peer networking.
Of course we can imagine different business models. This one certainly has negative tradeoffs. But I think developers get a great deal for the 30% tax, and the formula has undeniably been successful in producing a marketplace where users are more comfortable spending money---the App Store has nearly double the revenue of Google Play, with a fifth the market share.
(To me, the $99 developer fee seems more to do with anti-fraud than anything. With that you get two professional technical support incidents, almost guaranteed to cost Apple more than $99 in wages.)
Clearly, though, Apple's rules incentivized developers to handle payments outside the App Store, and now they're upset that they've created a situation where they're getting a 0% cut. And undoubtedly it hurts the user experience when you can't sign up on-device.
Those things are all true, but fundamentally their share isn't about any specific API or "service" they provide on the platform. That they do all those things makes it an attractive place to sell your product. But the basic reason is that they've amassed a large number of highly valuable users who are willing to spend money on apps on their marketplace.
As a user, knowing that by buying from IAP there is a hidden tax of 30% I would always avoid giving them money.
People never realized that if company is being charged transaction fee, they will always forward that to you in one way or the other.
A common response is that Apple’s cut is too high. How did you arrive at 2 to 3 percent?
I am torn. I like the in app payment and subscription systems easy to use and manage and trustworthy, no run around if a later I want to cancel a subscription, good stuff for the consumer.
I do think their 30% cut is excessive but they provide a lot a value with it, not sure what number would be acceptable to developers in order to just use it, part of me thinks they should just take no cut and make all their money by dominating phone sales.
The real problem here is complicated rules that are inconsistently enforced, and changing their minds later, that really screws over developers.
It would be trivial to solve by still requiring the IAP, but allowing developers to inform the user that another price is available on the web.
You'd still get the convenience of subscribing through the app if you want it (and paying more for it), but you'd be aware of the alternative. After all, if Apple defends their policies as user protection, they shouldn't be opposed to more information being given.
The rule is that you need to provide a way to buy it in-app. NOTE: It doesn't have to be the same price.
"One recent example is Spotify, whose music app was $9.99 per month if you subscribed on the web, but was $12.99 per month if you subscribed on iOS"
Apple is a clear monopoly that does not provide consumer value. Monopolies are bad for free markets. It should be broken up. Meaning, they should be forced to allow non-apple markets on their hardware.
I'm not sure it's fair to say that 'Apple is trying to shut down hey' as it sounds like that same situation hasn't affected any other apps before. Apple is choosing to enforce their terms (which you can disagree with - i think charging 30% is way too much) and that is about it. A lot of other apps have faced the same situation before and only certain ones have managed to fall into the specific 'readers' exemption.
I'm also a bit surprised that a team like the one I guess hey has, did not see this coming, as it's pretty clear in the apple store terms and anybody with some iOS and app store publishing experience would have been concerned about that from day 1.
How is it different than gmail?
maybe it's time for ios developers to (temporary) remove their apps from the App Store as a protest?
Taking 30% without providing alternatives to install apps seems totally unfair
These Apple tactics are nothing new. Why is DHH acting so surprised?
Just curious, is there anything that can prevent developers to charge 30% more when in-app purchase is used for sign-up, with a nice little text around the 'Buy' button:
You would get 30% discount if you use our website for purchase. Here the price includes Apple payment infrastructure cost.
I'm sure there would not be anything in Apple's guideline documents about adding above kind of 'informative' content.
So why does Fastmail work without any issues? Also a Mail-Service.
Same situation as hey.com but allowed.