Yeah, that’s bad. Heartily recommend fastmail. Their domain support is great, it really is “fast” mail, and it was a pleasure to ditch gmail. I have no use for an “imbox.”
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Approves Basecamp's Email App 'Hey' With Newly Added 14-Day Free Account Option [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple didn’t die on the hill, but Hey threatened suicide to fight it. But they caved instead.
Turns out this was all just a publicity stunt; Hey was perfectly willing to alter the app the entire time 🙄
Last edited:
I don’t get it, why pay $99 per year for a @hey.com email address when you could just buy your OWN domain and pay for office 365 basic for less.
Well, some good seems to have come out all this.
www.theverge.com
After outcry, Apple will let developers challenge App Store guidelines
Following a high-profile dispute with email service Hey
www.theverge.com
Did you download the app? It requires you to sign in and doesn't give you access until you make an account on their website. They didn't change anything about the app. They added a free trial to their website. It's still a useless app without an account created outside of the app, which is what Phil was whining about in the first place.
It's a stupid workaround, and again, a stupid hill to die on.
Fantastic news for everyone who wants to pay $100 PER YEAR for an email provider that won’t allow data ingress, egress, or connecting via third-party apps. Even more fantastic for dhh, who I’m sure can now buy even more Lamborghinis to race. More power (no pun intended) to him. Quite the publicity stunt on his part, bravo!
Apple’s fine with apps that offer free trials. Hey always had that option, and decided to take it instead of spending “every dollar they have or will ever make” fighting it.
Who died on what hill? You’re not making any sense.
Apple: "Change your app."
Hey: "OK, we updated our billing system. The app is the same."
Apple: "Ok, we're good now."
Seems pretty stupid. Wonder how they'll react to Disney+ dropping free trials.
1) They submitted a new app. Download v1.03 if you don’t have it yet.
2) Disney’s fine. Apps that allow access to previously purchased content or content subscriptions are clearly excepted in 3.1.3(a) of the developer guidelines. No different than Netflix, Spotify, etc.
No dog in the fight, not paying to use an email app when already paying for domain email service.
A dumb fight really. What happened to that other subscription email app, oh yeh Newton died like 3 times. There is no sustainable business model in a subscription email app where the company makes enough to run their servcers, plus keep it updated and bug free. Not when email is generally free as is many of the service email apps; plus the free one you get on device.
hey.com
"HEY is an email provider, it’s not an app you use to check your existing Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo, etc. HEY is a replacement for those services. HEY is all you need to send, receive, and organize email. You can forward your current email to HEY, but when you sign up for HEY you’ll get a brand new @hey.com email address. "
Yehhhhhh good luck with that! Sure just email me @hey.com sounds reallllllll professional for the type who would pay for an email app to begin with.
My prediction- massive FLOP
A dumb fight really. What happened to that other subscription email app, oh yeh Newton died like 3 times. There is no sustainable business model in a subscription email app where the company makes enough to run their servcers, plus keep it updated and bug free. Not when email is generally free as is many of the service email apps; plus the free one you get on device.
Frequently asked questions about HEY
Got a question about HEY? You’ve come to the right place.
hey.com
Yehhhhhh good luck with that! Sure just email me @hey.com sounds reallllllll professional for the type who would pay for an email app to begin with.
My prediction- massive FLOP
Last edited:
All these developers complaining about the App Store don’t realize that it’s no different than an actual store front. Sure, the developer made the product, but Apple decides to help sell their product and instantly market it to its millions of customers on its own accord. Apple doesn’t have to carry their product. The developers can spend their own money for marketing and placement, but it won’t get as far as on Apple’s platform. They didn’t build the platform and they don’t maintain it. Apple has no obligation to host any apps, let alone let people install any 3rd party apps (which they almost didn’t in the early days). By that logic, every OS (even for something like a smart bulb or smart fridge) would be obligated to let you install anything you wanted on it.
Those brick and mortar stores also take a cut of the product’s final sale to support their infrastructure. People also walk into those stores because they view them as trustworthy. The App Store is no different.
Those brick and mortar stores also take a cut of the product’s final sale to support their infrastructure. People also walk into those stores because they view them as trustworthy. The App Store is no different.
Just FYI, Phil Schiller is not the CEO of Apple; he's the senior VP of worldwide marketing. Otherwise, I agree with your reasoning.
1) Apple isn’t in a monopolistic position. They have only 40% market share in their largest market and <20% in others. Microsoft was.
2) Apple aren’t mandating that THEIR software be installed on OTHER manufacturers hardware. Microsoft was.
3) Apple is controlling their OWN software and services on their OWN hardware. Both customers and developers have a CHOICE to go elsewhere (to a more dominant platform). This wasn’t the case for Microsoft.
So my legal opinion is that the Microsoft case has zero bearing on how Apple operates it’s App Store.
This is fundamentally flawed logic. Best Buy and other retailers sell physical goods that consumers can use in a wide variety of places. The App Store only sells digital goods that can be used on a specific platform, and is owned by the platform holder. It is more akin to say, the PlayStation or XBox storefronts. The platform holder has full say over what is on the platform and what percentage they charge for being on it.
You could argue this should be different, but I don’t think they should be held to the same standards as retail storefronts because it is a completely different ballgame. If Apple allows other ways of apps being installed on the device, that opens up the platform to all sorts of bad actors and malware, etc which they have a vested interest in keeping off of their platform. This isn’t a concern for Best Buy.
And I say this as someone who fully supports Hey and is a paying user of their service. I do still think Apple was in the wrong in this particular instance. Hey isn’t on the App Store because they hope to get a ton of new users there. They are providing a service and doing all the marketing, sign up, billing, etc themselves. They knew they had about 100k+ people that would be interested day one, and those people would demand an iOS app. Hey doesn’t need the App Store to sell subscriptions, they just need to be available to their users on every platform.
How an email client is not a “reader” app is beyond me, but in any case Apple doesn’t look great in this scenario. I still don’t think that speaks to a larger antitrust issue or that you can really argue for a better solution vs. what they’re currently doing. Maybe the cuts should change, maybe they should be more willing to work with developers who clearly have their hearts in the right place, but letting congress sort it out is the wrong solution.
Last edited:
Hey wasn't the first, so there is precedent.
Well it's not about looking great, it's about doing what they believe is the right thing. Hey doesn't look great either.
If there even is one. That would be up to the courts to decide.
I agree letting Congress sort out most things is the wrong solution, however Apple probably will not open up the App store. (Whether that's good or bad depends on your point of view)
Imo, if it is software, the logic is even more relevant, because operating costs are MUCH LOWER for Apple than Best Buy.
Also, there's a huge difference between Apple being allowed to ban apps for being bad-actors, and Apple being allowed to ban competition. These are separate things and are treated differently under the law (as they should be).
Similarly, Microsoft cannot release a patch that bans competing software (they tried with internet browsers long ago), but they ARE legally allowed to ban spyware or malware.