Apple Threatens to Remove Email App 'Hey' From App Store Over Lack of In-App Subscription Option [Updated]

[Naaaaak]

You think Apple gets free internet services?

I'm fine hosting my own projects and doing my own payment processing and licensing. This is the default state of every non-store dev.

I still can't easily distribute anything to a customer on iOS outside of the store. That's the point here. Apple pretends to be ALL ABOUT THE INNOVATION (when innovation = removing a port or shipping a defective keyboard) while inhibiting real innovation by controlling mobile app innovation through distribution policy.

Cost of bandwidth is not the argument and certainly not Apple's highest cost in running the Crap Store.

 

[farewelwilliams]

I am a developer and CTO as well, and went round and round with Apple about ours. None of those apply in this case.

It applied to us.
[automerge]1592358460[/automerge]

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

Look at the date. 2011

You do know that the guidelines have changed hundreds of times since then, right? Any Apple developer that has developed for the iPhone for at least 2-3 years know the guidelines change quite often.

They even removed this snarky comment "If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps." that was in 2014's guidelines: https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
They even had "We will reject Apps for any content or behavior that we believe is over the line". It's obvious they removed many clauses that made Apple sound like a dictatorship and replaced it with different wordings to make it sound softer.

AFAIK I don't see an app that offers a different price via the web but I'm sure you can find an app that has a different subscription price on the web vs in-app. After all, Apple isn't perfect with their review process as they let version 1.0 of Hey on the app store when it should have been rejected. Apple has done the same with our apps where 1.0.0 was kosher but 1.0.1 was rejected and we had to redo the sign up page (not to mention migrate databases so early on in the phase).

Anyways, I'm done talking about this with you. Won't read anymore.

UPDATE: weird how Apple somehow took the archive link down.

 

[I7guy]

Apple bootlicker excuses addressed:

• "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.

"We can't wait to see what you make" Apple tells devs every year at WWDC.

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.

Apple perpetual critic hyperbole addressed:
- "You don't need an app". A web/app home screen works fine. I have several personally.
- "Apple is fairly even handed when it comes to app selection". Occasionally they reject an app that results in some controversy, but always seems that a mutual agreement is reached. Occasionally Apple rejects an app that absolutely should be rejected, but the developers seem to "cry" about it. Of course, a dev is always free to develop for android.
- "Apple isn't obligated to approve an app": Sure they aren't. But when they don't why do the critics automatically criticize the company without seeing every point of view? What Apple seems to is reject poorly written innovative apps that break some rules.
- "Sounds like the devs should follow the app store guidelines": Rules are updated continually based on new information. Devs are expected to keep up with the rules and be above board and honest. Apple is not obligated to air any dirty laundry about what happens behind the scenes.
- "Apple isn't a monopoly": Similar to Microsoft isn't a monopoly. A SCOTUS ruling is supposed to be coming down about the App store. We will see what that ruling is and the follow-up.

Those that follow the rules have a slot waiting for them in the app store. This entire thing about "shipping direct" may or may not be pipe dream depending on SCOTUS ruling.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Because it's is impossible that I got my subscribers on my website.

Any subscribers you get on your website don’t have to be revenue shared with Apple.

 

[macsrcool1234]

At $100 a year, Hey email will die a quiet, lonely death. I don’t see a lot of revenue coming in for Apple.

Even more for certain names -

Hey considers these shortened addresses “premium” and worth the extra money. For a two-letter address, it will be $999 a year. For a three-letter one, the cost drops to $375 a year. Everyone else who signs up for Hey, which is still in an invite-only phase until a broader launch next month, can simply pick a four-letter or longer email address and pay the standard $99 a year.

 

[usagora]

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.

$100 per year is not "hefty" by any definition. And obviously free apps are normally generating ad revenue for the developer with in-app ads and also offer in-app purchases (by developers who actually follow that rule).

 

[germinator]

Simple solution: Get out of the App store.
The whole concept that Apps need to be approved by Apple is ridiculous and must go.

 

[Abazigal]

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.

First off, paying Apple $100 a year to have their app hosted is chump change. If they are not able to earn even that from their apps, they have no business being around in business.

Second, I think your initial point actually ends up making a strong argument for Apple doing what they have done. There are many ways for developers to monetise their apps. As noted, Apple doesn’t get a cut of ad revenue, nor do they get a cent when I hail a ride through the Uber app, or purchase groceries via the amazon prime app.

This ends up being a reason why Apple has to charge what it does (30% / 15% for subscriptions) for digital goods in order to avoid running the App Store at a loss. Because you have plenty of developers who do use the App Store platform without having to pay Apple anything (beyond the $100 a year) while continuing to cost them money.

I can see Apple agreeing to allow developers to add a message to their apps where they can direct users to sign up elsewhere, because that’s the path of least resistance and requires the least amount of compliance from Apple.

Anything more, well, if it’s a fight the developers and regulators want, then perhaps it’s a fight they should get.

 

[jdawgnoonan]

Crock of ****. I personally never pay for any service I use over Apple's system because they deserve the full amount that I pay, not what I pay minus Apple's cut. It is time for this app store model to die if this is seriously acceptable.

 

[kerr]

"Apple said that sign-in only apps are allowed for business services, but not consumer products."

What the hell is the distinction? So Netflix and Spotify are not consumer products?
[automerge]1592361143[/automerge]
How about Basecamp allowing sign-up for a free account via the app, auto populate the account with a welcome email that provides a link to the website where users can purchase a subscription?

 

[DeepIn2U]

Well done. Devs are getting ripped off. 30 percent? Apple, seriously!

what? Seriously? Didn’t seem an issue for these Devs whom: don’tpay for marketing their app, don’t pay a service fee themselves for hosting the app (weekly,monthly or yearly), whom don’t pay for advertisement (editors picks if selected), don’t pay service fees for 10/20/50+ transactions for payments, and guaranteed income as there are NO returns for sales of their apps. Curious does devs get to decide their pricing in the App Store? Most likely and many have priced their 30% fee therein already.

 

[Rogifan]

Can someone confirm: could Microsoft offer Office apps in the iOS App Store without including in app Microsoft 365 subscription purchase? Are the only apps they allow to bypass IAP ebooks and streaming media?

Then there’s this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1273079296618201093

https://twitter.com/x/status/1273039025117343744

 

[ouimetnick]

I do hope Apple and Timmy boy get it handed to them by the EU if the United States doesn’t go after them for this unfair behavior. Remember when they rejected Google Maps and claimed that consumers could get “confused” between Apple’s own Maps app and Google Maps? No one remembers when Tim Apple’s excuse was that their customers were just too stupid to figure out things for themselves?

I remember when they rejected Google Voice because they apparently thought I was dumb enough to confuse it with the default phone app😂😂
I don’t care about this app, and I’ve never heard of it or the developer until today. I’ll stick with Gmail and iCloud, but if they allow Netflix and Spotify, they can allow this app.

 

[Rogifan]

Good on Gruber.

Basecamp’s New App, Hey, Flagged in App Store Limbo for Not Using In-App Purchase

Link to: https://www.protocol.com/hey-email-app-store-rejection

daringfireball.net

The Flimsiness of ‘Business vs. Consumer’ as a Justification for Apple’s Rejection of Hey From the App Store for Not Using In-App Purchases

I’m not trying to be coy, but what is the iPhone itself? A business device or a consumer product? Using *or* instead of *and* as the conjunction there is clearly laughable.

daringfireball.net

 

[JetBlack7]

Hey Apple, guess what? Not everyone wants an effin' subscription. I prefer to pay once and never have to deal with it again.

 

[amartinez1660]

That argument isn't really valid because Apple FORCES you to distribute your app in their store. If you could sideload iOS apps, then Apple would have a valid argument if you wanted your app in their store.

To provide another Apple example, if Hey wanted to distribute a Mac app they'd be able to do so without having to implement in-app purchases, outside of the app store.

I wish people would stop the excuse that "Apple is letting you use your store; you should compensate them for that." Apple isn't LETTING you use their store, they're FORCING you to use it just to have access to a significant portion of the market.

Note, I like Apple products and services. I'm just willing to call them out on stuff like this.

Very fair and accurate point. Why is it that OS X always had it free for all but the iOS ecosystem didn’t? Mind you, on Mac it seems to me that some developers might struggling more than others being able to communicate to users what and how things need to be enabled to make things work (permissions, settings, etc), let alone work properly on Catalina (I don’t know what’s up with Catalina besides the 32bit thing that seems to put every developer upside down, is it that different from High Sierra?)

 

[Shirasaki]

Apple love to interpret and enforce rules inconsistently. I see. That’s why they have no problem treating chinese market differently than American market. This Hey app drama is basically the same thing. One strategy I can call it “struggle for survival” even if it will attract tons of disagreements.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Hey Apple, guess what? Not everyone wants an effin' subscription. I prefer to pay once and never have to deal with it again.

Bitch at Hey, not Apple. It wasn’t Apple’s decision to charge you $100/yr. The developer sets that price.

How can you not know that?

 

[Facepalm101]

As Apple have already set a precedent with Spotify and Netflix (plus others) then, frankly, "Hey" should be allowed to do the same since they are not offering links to their website, either.

No... very few people seem to be able to understand the distinction for a reader app...

When I purchase/subscribe to Netflix the product is the content.

When I purchase/subscribe to something like “Hey” the product is the software/application.

 

[alex2792]

Jesus, the anticompetitive **** Apple is pulling with their App Store is 100000000000x worse than Microsoft of the 90s. Will the regulators ever wake the **** up and stick their foot so deep up Tim’s backside that he’ll be sleeping upright for a month?

 

[pasamio]

Very fair and accurate point. Why is it that OS X always had it free for all but the iOS ecosystem didn’t? Mind you, on Mac it seems to me that some developers might struggling more than others being able to communicate to users what and how things need to be enabled to make things work (permissions, settings, etc), let alone work properly on Catalina (I don’t know what’s up with Catalina besides the 32bit thing that seems to put every developer upside down, is it that different from High Sierra?)

MacOS was an elegant operating system for a more civilised age. A lot of it is history, the computers were in general more open and there wasn't a central approval system in place to run code. The model for making money was definitely on the hardware side more than software and if you wanted to use the product it required a more technical audience, much the same audience that occupies this forum. To attract the people to buy your product, you need to make it enticing to those people otherwise they won't come. When I returned to the Mac with Mac OS X 10.4, there was built in X11 support, Java, support for my Palm to sync (that worked better than Palm's HotSync ever did), up to date scripting libraries with Perl, Python, PHP and more. The original XCode was a much simpler, cleaner development environment and had lots of integration points for which ever direction you'd want to take. Apple also had Dashcode, a tool for building dashboard widgets that was later upgraded to support building web based iOS apps. Apple offered Unix compatible operating system (certified Unix at one point) which also helped developers building for the cloud with Linux deployables because they could mostly develop locally and then run it on the cloud without having to deal with the hoops that was Windows. Apple I think are slowly trying to lock down the Mac but i hope they don't take it all the way because it'll stifle creativity and innovation pushing it back to Windows or over to Linux, both of which haven't lain dormant for the years.

The iPhone follows a different model. The first version had these web "apps" which I'm sure someone thought would be the future. Most of the apps were laggy because they couldn't fully run the Javascript implementation and building an app with the DOM and Javascript is slow in general. Keep in mind that loading apps onto phones wasn't anywhere near as big, the high end Windows PDA's had them, some of the Nokia phones did it but it was awful to deal with. Apple took their App Store in a path that resembles the console manufacturers who must individually approve games to be released with their logo. Apple created a walled garden to avoid some of the issues that Windows CE had on the PDA space with apps that didn't behave well or were wonky. Apple would vet each app and approve them assuming they met their guidelines. This is in part the price paid for entry into the ecosystem and people have complained about it constantly for it's inconsistent rules that were often enforced at times to avoid competition with their own apps.

Now here is the controversial opinion: Apple is free to do this with their ecosystem (hardware, software and services) as they wish. I think pushing everyone to offer payment solutions inside their ecosystem is not great, especially as they've had a trade off with enforcing no advertising whilst still permitting external access. I don't think this renewed strategy is a good move and if they block app updates from enough companies that band together they will find themselves on the wrong side of the market. When that happens Apple will hopefully reverse course quickly but I do worry this is a line that's not worth crossing.

 

[Cosmosent]

It is my very strong opinion that if AAPL recommends an app in ANY of their "curated" App Stores, then they should get what's in the Agreement (i.e., their agreed-upon cut) ...

However, for ALL those apps AAPL has NEVER ONCE recommended, AAPL's cut should be ZERO !

 

[GermanSuplex]

They had me until the end, when I realize some of the apps mentioned have useful feature without purchasing anything. Spotify, for instance, and simply browsing music.

 

[christophosphorus]

Can someone confirm: could Microsoft offer Office apps in the iOS App Store without including in app Microsoft 365 subscription purchase? Are the only apps they allow to bypass IAP ebooks and streaming media?

Then there’s this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1273079296618201093

https://twitter.com/x/status/1273039025117343744

Unreal. I hope there's more noise about this soon, as this is highway robbery at its finest. They made over $500 billion just from app store customers/advertisers last year. Let that sink in for a sec, and then see how you feel about them bullying developers to hand over 30+% of their earnings.

 

[I7guy]

Unreal. I hope there's more noise about this soon, as this is highway robbery at its finest. They made over $500 billion just from app store customers/advertisers last year. Let that sink in for a sec, and then see how you feel about them bullying developers to hand over 30+% of their earnings.

While at the same time providing a platform for management and distribution. As whether or not the App Store is a monopoly is for the courts to decide.