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 Threatens to Remove Email App 'Hey' From App Store Over Lack of In-App Subscription Option [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, that's not what I'm talking about.
Apple are now claiming that Basecamp is a professional business app and so is not covered by the rules that they claim Hey is covered under.
Again, I'm looking for where this is stated in the agreement.
I guess in a perfect world, Apple would never have created the App Store (and the revenue model that justified their initial investment) in the first place.
At least we can all agree that a digital store more like GooglePlay would be much better for developers and -- most importantly -- consumers like us. Because (1) it would be easier to find the best apps, if for no other reason than there'd be six gazillion in every category; (2) we could shop with the confidence that the apps we purchase have been vetted (particularly for privacy concerns); and (3) all of the developers would drop their prices 30% because they're not evil like Apple is!
Well, one can hope for such a day!
In the meantime, I hope that service providers can get their class action/EU complaint going about Apple's unfair practice of refusing to allow those service providers to lard iPhones up with ****** bloatware. Talk about an unfair business practice!
At least we can all agree that a digital store more like GooglePlay would be much better for developers and -- most importantly -- consumers like us. Because (1) it would be easier to find the best apps, if for no other reason than there'd be six gazillion in every category; (2) we could shop with the confidence that the apps we purchase have been vetted (particularly for privacy concerns); and (3) all of the developers would drop their prices 30% because they're not evil like Apple is!
Well, one can hope for such a day!
In the meantime, I hope that service providers can get their class action/EU complaint going about Apple's unfair practice of refusing to allow those service providers to lard iPhones up with ****** bloatware. Talk about an unfair business practice!
...and I directly quoted the App Store Review Guidelines, the “guidelines” to which apps must conform, which indicates which apps can be sign-in-only instead of using IAP. Your point?
Or not. Who knows? If you’re counting on government regulation to force companies to lose their value, yep. But based on the last 10 years of MR posters charting Apples' course, Apple should have been dead today.
Last edited:
You've not been clear. I asked for sure guidelines as to where this was stated. If your first reply was "As far as I know there is no such stipulation" then we'd have been fine. Instead you quoted just one part of my post with a single "nope" then further muddied the waters with continued ambiguous responses.
Then don't. No one is forcing you. What's the big deal? A company offers a service, for a price, with T&Cs. If it works for you, great, if it doesn't, that's fine too.
Apple provides an iOS/iPadOS/tvOS/watchOS ecosystem. It has advantages and disadvantages. As a user, one of the advantages is that all apps are available from one secure, curated source - The App Store. That helps most users keep their devices safe. Some people do not like this (a perfectly reason position for them to take), and they can buy Android devices (or any of the other non-Apple systems). Given that Apple's market share does not exceed 50% anywhere, and in most places, does not get about 25%, they are not a monopoly and people have lots of other options.
You are correct that Apple has different policies for their Macs, than they do for their iOS-related ecosystem. They are, however, quite different platforms, and serve different customers. Again, Apple has been very clear about these policies upfront, no one - not customers, developers or enterprises - should be surprised about these requirements.
Nope, it is not an excuse. No one is forced to sell their apps on iOS, nor is anyone forced to buy iOS devices. There is quite a healthy market for competitors. Further, you seem to miss what a ****** user experience this would create if they allowed companies to do this. I like being able to pay via in-app purchase for items through that I only use on iOS-based systems, because it means I do not have to create a new billing relationship, etc., while I tolerate it for services where I need access from outside that walled garden, it would make my experience worse over all if more companies did what Hey.com wants to do.
As I have said before, some vocal users on here what Apple to sell a different product than they do. You have every right to want that. At some point, you will have to decide whether the things you like about the ecosystem out weigh the things you do not like and decide if you want to stay. However, you (and others) should also recognize that there are a great many users who prefer things this way and do not want Apple to change these things. Having worked with a large mobile games company, I saw the difference between the iOS and Android markets. Since it was easy to side load products, they sold very few copies on Android (apps would be very quickly pirated and widely distributed). As a result, only the largest selling titles that could be ad-supported were ported to the platform.
The change you want, will invariably lead to that. At the moment, things are great. Those who do not want a curated world have a large array of options. Many of the rest of us like things as they are.
I am a developer and CTO as well, and went round and round with Apple about ours. None of those apply in this case.
Mostly what you’re paying 30% for is access to 1.3+billion customers who can buy your app.
If you want to take issue over ambiguity, take it up with Apple and their inconsistent/arbitrary interpretation and enforcement, not me.
If it would not have been for government regulations, Exxon would be the only cie selling Oil in the US and they would be worth at least 10 times more than Apple. Good for the cie, not so much for the consumer as gas would be much more expensive. You can make a endless list of speculation on what it might have been and will be.
You are forgetting that the developers sell their software to their own customers not to Apple. Apple does not own the iPhones, people do. The business is between the app developers and app users.
Wow this thread got big. All that matters is that apples time is coming for a long overdue antitrust decision. They’ll get smacked hard. Service revenue and stock will take a hit.
Predictably Apple will still have defenders saying how unfair it was to smack em hard. But the reality is no one in tech deserves it more than Apple.
Predictably Apple will still have defenders saying how unfair it was to smack em hard. But the reality is no one in tech deserves it more than Apple.
Wow this thread is a mess. We're dealing with two completely separate concepts here:
1. The rules
2. The enforcement of the rules
The app in question is without a doubt breaking the very clear rule that I quoted earlier. There is no argument here, no matter how many times someone clicks the "disagree" button for my posts. It's just a simple fact. Just because Netflix allegedly breaks the rule and gets away with it doesn't negate the fact that this app is also breaking the rule. They can whine about inconsistent enforcement, and I'm with them 100%, but they can't whine that they're not breaking the rule, when they clearly are. This is why I used the speeding analogy earlier, which was dismissed as illogical, yet it clearly is apropos here.
I'm not an Apple apologist here. I agree that they need to enforce things consistently. But I'm also a rational (not emotional) thinker and prefer to examine the facts for what they are, not what we feel they should be or want them to be.
Oh, snap! Looks like you are flat out wrong:
Apple reverses policies on in-app subscriptions
Apple has quietly updated its App Store review guidelines, eliminating price restrictions on in-app subscriptions.
www.macworld.com
If you are able to get developers for $100/year, I cannot imagine why you would care about giving Apple 30%. Again, if you do not think that Apple iOS customers are worth the money, you can either not sell to them, or deliver your product/service as a SPA web app.
Yes Apple "said" this, or something like that to Protocol, it isn't a direct quote from Apple so there is some interpretation/ paraphrasing from Protocol of what was stated from Apple.
Besides that statement from Apple today the App Store guidelines make no such clear distinction about "Business Services" vs "Consumer Products". The guidelines that cover this are 3.1.3(a) and 3.1.3(b). The only thing as stated earlier is 3.1.1(a) includes the verbiage "and approved services" which you could take as basically an escape hatch for Apple to say "anything we damn well want to allow".
- 3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage, and approved services such as classroom management apps), provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods are not designed to discourage use of in-app purchase.
- 3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services: 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. You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase.
If they do not think that it is worth it, they are not forced to sell in this market. Further, Hey.com offers a web only version, if they do not want to pay they can make that the solution for iOS customers and not need to go through the App Store.
As if Apple owned iPhone users. Why exactly do the app developers should pay for "access" to people?