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
Basecamp, the company behind this product, has a valuation of over $100 billion.
The company that will fight to the death to avoid paying taxes says they’re entitled to 30% for their services with no sense of irony.
Thanks for the clarification. That's exactly what I expected and was looking for.
Source? I ask because every reference I've found to their (BaseCamp's) valuation has been the $100B publicity stunt I mentioned in the comment you replied to.
He was incorrect. This is not a small company we're talking about. The Hey email app is made by Basecamp. They're a $100 billion company, nearly comparable to Netflix.
Obviously because it enables the developer to generate a whole mot more revenue. Apple takes a good cut of that. Pretty simple. I've sold some nice guitars on consignment before and the store might take anywhere from 15-25% of the sale, but they have much greater exposure and reputation than me, an individual. This is not some foreign concept. Not sure why people think they have a right to use a distribution channel without paying anything. If you don't like the rules, then you have to either suck it up or develop for another platform. Whining won't change a thing.
the rule is so clear that Apple's issued statement on the matter cites (yet) another rule about consumer vs business apps.
I asked you what does "unlock extra functionality mean" and told you that logging in a service you have paid for should not be considered "extra functionality" by any reasonable interpretation.
I also asked you how would you interpret the rule in cases like credit cards (with a yearly fee), or ride-sharing, or amazon movie rentals, and so on.
But you dodged all of these questions, and you tout something about state troopers and Apple's expenses.
They sounded like rhetorical questions to me. I don't recall mentioning Apple's expenses and some other things you mentioned, so I think you're conflating posts from me and someone else. In any case, I'm under no obligation to respond to everything a post says. I like to cut to the chase instead of following red herrings.
swingerofbirch
macrumors 68040
How are Netflix and Spotify not consumer apps?
Apple's rules are so convoluted that it doesn't even seem like they are rules. It sounds like they make decisions and the rules are created to support that decision.
Apple's rules are so convoluted that it doesn't even seem like they are rules. It sounds like they make decisions and the rules are created to support that decision.
Nobody is asking Apple to distribute their apps (well, some might but that's not the point). You could have sold your guitars on Craigslist or in many other ways and pay no fee. App developers do not need Apple to sell their apps. What you are arguing for is the system where you could sell your guitars only at one consignment store and pay a 30% fee.
Do you not think I realize that? My point was that it's a WHOLE lot easier and faster to sell with a high-profile seller, which is what makes it worth the % cut they take. You were asking why developers should have to pay (as if you didn't understand the value). I was explaining the value. And it's even more in this case because it's not just a single sale, but potentially tens of thousands if not more. Yes, of course I know that in THIS case there's no other option, but that doesn't change the fact that they have a HUGE advantage by selling on the App Store, especially if they're not a household name developer (which very few are) vs. their own website or some other channel, if that were allowed.
Yes, Apple is being bad again...hard to understand how to company has come to this. Sad.
Maybe this was "Hey"s marketing plan - free news coverage and who knows how many downloads from curious readers or people wanting to make a point with Apple?
There is no way Basecamp is valued at $100 Billion, no way they are anywhere close to Netflix.
Basecamp is not a $100 billion company. Not sure if it’s even worth a billion. It’s a small company with an unknown number of customers. Could be a $10 million or $100 million company; without knowing anything about their financials it’s impossible to assign a valuation.
Last edited:
You’re missing the point. The App Store is one pice in a cohesive supply chain that Starts with the iPhone and iOS. Opening your own supply chain would be designing and making your own phones, and selling them, and setting up an App Store for them. You’re free to do that.
Apple bootlicker excuses addressed:
Then devs do cool things and Apple says "OH NO NO, WE DIDN'T MEAN TO INNOVATE THAT HARD. SORRY! YOU'LL LOSE ALL YOUR DEV COSTS AND TIME SPENT AND YOUR BUSINESS DREAMS BUT THEM'S THE BRAKES!"
The discussion on the Crap Store and Schiller's awful policies should cast a dark cloud over WWDC. We're over a decade into these crap anti-consumer, anti-dev policies and nothing's changed.
If devs weren't obligated to use the App Store to ship apps on iPhone/iPad, we'd see a ton more innovation and Apple would have to EARN their cut. Until that happened, a ton of devs would bypass Apple's nonsense altogether and ship direct.
Ready to hear about an ARM Mac that only runs App Store content next week? Why wouldn't Apple do that when they've pounded so many consumers into submission and still get paid handsomely for it.
- "You don't have to build for the app store" FALSE. Lack of an app condemned Gab and other Twitter competitors from rising. No one uses a web app/home screen bookmark. Apple gatekeeps for their cohorts in Big Tech with their selective application of policies.
- "You're free to develop for Android" Missing the point. Apple is rejecting apps already built and paid for using arbitrary reasons. On top of that, you'd have a 30-40% market gap by going Android-only.
- "Apple isn't obligated to approve an app" Why does anyone defend a trillion dollar company that's screwing you this hard? They have a pattern of rejecting innovate apps or innovative business models, especially those that compete with their built-in apps and services.
- "Sounds like the dev didn't read the rules" They change the rules all the time and apply them indiscriminately! They even say it was an error to accept the app in the first place! There's no public list of apps and reasons for rejection to examine. Clarification questions to Apple frequently get contradicted or go unanswered.
- "Apple's not a monopoly" The whole mobile market is a duopoly where both big players act monopolistic. It's not much different.
Then devs do cool things and Apple says "OH NO NO, WE DIDN'T MEAN TO INNOVATE THAT HARD. SORRY! YOU'LL LOSE ALL YOUR DEV COSTS AND TIME SPENT AND YOUR BUSINESS DREAMS BUT THEM'S THE BRAKES!"
The discussion on the Crap Store and Schiller's awful policies should cast a dark cloud over WWDC. We're over a decade into these crap anti-consumer, anti-dev policies and nothing's changed.
If devs weren't obligated to use the App Store to ship apps on iPhone/iPad, we'd see a ton more innovation and Apple would have to EARN their cut. Until that happened, a ton of devs would bypass Apple's nonsense altogether and ship direct.
Ready to hear about an ARM Mac that only runs App Store content next week? Why wouldn't Apple do that when they've pounded so many consumers into submission and still get paid handsomely for it.
Like an armored truck company that charges 30% of the contents of your money bag to haul it to the bank, that package company would have no customers if they charged that price.
Apple, on the other hand, has tens of millions of willing developers as customers. Apparently those devs are agreeable to the 30% revenue share.
Customers willingly pay what a service is worth. The ability to access 1.3+ billion potential customers is very valuable to tens of millions of iOS developers. But every once in awhile, one if them gets a little greedy and decides they want more.
Exactly.
Also, Google does not charge its iOS users but it certainly profits from them watching ads. Is Apple going to claim their 30% cut from that too?
The only option that would actually benefit iOS users would be to allow apps like HEY to exist in the AppStore.
Decisions like this are simply business decisions which are not for the benefit of the users, nor the benefit of the developers which keep the platform alive (and have to pay a fee every year for that privilege).
It's the same reason Apple keeps a tight grip on Safari. HEY could perfectly well exist as a PWA in the web outside the AppStore, except that Apple does not want to support push notifications from web apps which are essential for an email app.
[automerge]1592358204[/automerge]
You think developers don't pay a yearly hefty fee to be able to upload their apps? It's $100 per year, even if your apps are free or you don't sell a single unit.
Also, Apple could perfectly well charge storage/bandwidth to developers and even make a huge profit over their infrastructure costs. It would still be a lot less than a 30% cut from the sale.