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

[Rogifan]

They make up obscure rules to punish smaller developers and to keep bigger ones happy enough* to stay on the platform.

Anyone supporting this behavior is a sheep.

As an iOS user and a developer, I'm mad.

This 💯. It’s the small to medium sized developers that get screwed. The big ones, especially ones Apple competes with directly get special deals or categories like “reader apps” for anti-trust reasons. And what about all the small developers that can’t make this kind of noise that gets amplified inside the Apple media/pundit/social media ecosystem? They’re really screwed.

 

[TVOR]

Sure! And when my app is the only way to surf the internet, and when I charge you 30% of your salary to use it (but I'm giving it free to your wife's ex-husband), I will just ask you to not surf the internet at all.

Assuming my gender now are you? Isn't that a hate crime now????

Apple is not the ONLY smartphone...in fact, globally, they are a significant minority of market share. So your comparison falls flat there! But I'll bite...

So your app is the only way to surf the internet, and you charge me 30% of my salary to use it, and you give it away to my wife's (I'm not married) ex-husband (REALLY weird analogy but OK), then it is my decision whether I am OK with that or not. If I complain and you choose to lower the %...cool...if you don't...my problem. I would then venture back out into the real world and live my life without the internet...the same way as I would love to do now anyway...getting back to nature! But you missed out the part where I voluntarily signed up to your service when it was clear that you would charge me 30%...
[automerge]1592400140[/automerge]

This 💯. It’s the small to medium sized developers that get screwed. The big ones, especially ones Apple competes with directly get special deals or categories like “reader apps” for anti-trust reasons. And what about all the small developers that can’t make this kind of noise that gets amplified inside the Apple media/pundit/social media ecosystem? They’re really screwed.

What about my small business that I run now? I can't compete with the bigger, more established businesses in my sector because they have more money to spend than me!! Do I bitch about it? Nope! I either try to make a wage that I am happy with or, if market forces (including distribution platforms) mean that I can't make a wage that I am happy with in this industry...I leave and do something else. Nobody is owed success. I think the world has forgotten that. For all these Devs that are not making enough money...perhaps this isn't for you?

 

[Rogifan]

I would point out that Apple does not require ALL subscriptions be purchased thru the apps, only that IF a company takes subscriptions for functionality in the app, the company must offer the same subscription price INSIDE the app, which is subject to Apple’s 30% cut.

Spotify was charging 30% more in-app. Honestly no app should be required to offer IAP. ”Free” apps that have ads you can pay to get rid of and games will still use IAP because it would be too cumbersome to have people pay for this stuff outside the app. I’m sure that’s where Apple makes most of its App Store revenue from anyway.

 

[Abazigal]

I agree with everything you say here...but I have a solution! How about, drop the 30%, but charge ALL developers $10,000 per year? Oh, wait, is that not fair to the smaller Devs and would give the bigger Devs the upper hand? Boohoo! What do you want? Open access at a cost affordable to all Devs with the profit (Apple's profit) only being made when the Devs make profit...or Apple front-loading their profit at the expense of smaller Devs and in favour of bigger Devs?

Clearly, every pricing structure has its pros and cons.

There are tons of developers who release cheap or even free apps that have no clear revenue stream. It makes little sense to tax them so onerously when they are also doing a great service for the ecosystem. You just end up chasing them away.

So for me, my answer (selfish as it may be) would be to look at this issue from the perspective of the consumer, not the developer.

Ask yourself as a user - which benefits us users the most? Of course it’s the 30% revenue cut option, because that’s what helps retain the smaller developers and ensures a thriving selection of apps available for me to choose from.

Perhaps this is why I find myself quite partial to Apple’s policies in general, because they are what have made the ecosystem so attractive for me as a consumer to use, onerous as they may be for the consumer (personally, I am still waiting for more developers to implement “sign in with Apple” in their apps).

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

”That is obscene, and it's criminal, and I will spend every dollar that we have or ever make to burn this down until we get to somewhere better.”
Maybe build your own mobile operating system, build your own App Store, then put your own app in it. Boom! There’s a solution. Then you don’t have to pay anyone, except yourselves

I really don't understand this mentality (except for blind Apple faith). The "Build your own App Store" argument? That is what the app companies are doing by offering a subscription on their own web site. Their web site IS their "App Store". Apple does not allow distribution of said apps from anywhere BUT Apple App Store (at a cost of a ridiculous 30%) so sounds a bit unfair. "We won't allow you to distribute your own apps, so you have to use our App Store, and pay us a huge chunk of your revenue for the privilege to do so." Extortion at it's finest.

Maybe app developers wouldn't try to skirt the requirement and the costs to consumers would be less if Apple wasn't so greedy by asking for a 30% cut?

 

[Rob_2811]

They make up obscure rules to punish smaller developers and to keep bigger ones happy enough* to stay on the platform.

Anyone supporting this behavior is a sheep.

As an iOS user and a developer, I'm mad.

This.

“We don’t think that’s right — we want to maintain a level playing field where anyone with determination and a great idea can succeed.”


From a company that have just cut Amazon a secret sweetheart deal..

 

[Alan Wynn]

How about calling out the obvious anti competitive and anti consumer practices Apple abuses within the app store? Or are you too lazy to even think about any of that?

This is not ”anti-consumer”, it is a different approach that in many respects is “pro-consumer”. Requiring that I be able to sign up and pay via the App Store improves my customer experience, possibly at the expense of profit for the developer. I say possibly, as there is little chance that many customers would bother to signup with these convoluted processes, and so requiring that they allow App Store in-app purchase may net them more over all profit because of increased signups and decreased customer acquisition/support costs.

While you may not like this, and this developer may not like this, your argument is simply false that it is “anti-consumer”. Apple has chosen one group of consumers who prefer this approach, over the parochial interests of some developers and (what is likely to be) a small group of people who would otherwise be customers.

If this is not the model you want, there are many other options that do not have this curated experience. Please stop insisting that the only model that should be allowed is the one that you want. Many people (voting with their dollars) support Apple’s approach. When enough users leave because of these policies (either directly or because these policies prevent applications from becoming available on the store), Apple will have to change course or die.

 

[Rogifan]

What about my small business that I run now? I can't compete with the bigger, more established businesses in my sector because they have more money to spend than me!! Do I bitch about it? Nope! I either try to make a wage that I am happy with or, if market forces (including distribution platforms) mean that I can't make a wage that I am happy with in this industry...I leave and do something else. Nobody is owed success. I think the world has forgotten that. For all these Devs that are not making enough money...perhaps this isn't for you?

I’m not saying anybody is “owed” anything. But I think it’s plain as day that Apple’s policies are arbitrary and aren’t enforced consistently. This developer isn’t asking for anything special. It’s Apple that is coming up with some BS distinction between business and consumer apps and saying consumer apps require IAP. John Gruber searched App Store review guidelines and the word consumer is only mentioned once, in reference to an API for consumer health records. This is not a case of a developer not understanding the rules or trying to skirt them. Like I said it’s a case of Apple’s policies being arbitrary and inconsistently enforced.

 

[Murkrage]

There is no need for me to read up on things like that...because I could care less about what happens to an app developer for something that I will never ever use. But for somebody to base their business on online distribution platforms and to get caught out by not following the rules...well...that's just poor due diligence. If I were going to sink months of Dev work into a project, I would probably reach out to Apple first and say "Hey...Tim...you gonna cock block me if I develop this app?" Saves an awful lot of heartbreak later.

What are you on about? There is absolutely a need to read up on things if you are going to spew your opinion as fact in this topic. Context matters in this scenario. Your entire view is based on a black and white picture, but the reality is that it's very very gray.

It's fine, you hold on to your version of the truth and your frame of reference. It's clear by just reading this topic and all your replies that anyone that disagrees with you or tries to start a conversation needs to get their **** together and conform or get the F out. So I won't even bother starting a conversation and educating you on what's going on so that you can form an opinion based on all the facts.

Good day

 

[senttoschool]

This.

“We don’t think that’s right — we want to maintain a level playing field where anyone with determination and a great idea can succeed.”


From a company that have just cut Amazon a secret sweetheart deal..

Apple allowing some players to bypass 30% fee but not others: https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/1/2...e-video-ios-app-store-cut-exempt-program-deal

Spotify tells the nightmare it went through when Apple Music launched and Apple abused its iOS platform and App Store for its benefit: https://timetoplayfair.com/timeline/

 

[boss.king]

The world is moving to electric vehicles. I have a car that uses diesel. When the move to electric is complete I won't be able to use my car any more, it will be obsolete. I will have to purchase a new, electric car if I want to drive. That's just the world we live in. Things change and as much as we might not personally like it, we have to accept it even if it doesn't suit our own personal preferences.

That's a very different scenario, and a multi-decade transition. If the next MacOS removed non-App Store installations, my laptop is basically stuck in time from then on (so no security updates, no future app updates, possibly broken compatibility with my phone, etc).

What if an app developer creates an app that many people love and then decides in the future that they don't want to develop it any more...should they be criticised? Should they be forced to continue with it just to make other people happy? Of course not!

They probably should be criticised if they just take you money and then go "hey, I'm not working on this anymore, thanks for the money though". If there are other reasons (e.g. ongoing costs are exceeding the money the app brings in, changes to APIs or whatever are preventing fundamental functions from working, etc, then it' might be a little more understandable). But again, kinda different from gutting core functionality from $1000+ computer.

Plus I really don't see how App Store only would significantly change the way you use your computer. It MIGHT significantly change the way you install an app...one time...but then for the other 99% of the time the app would function exactly the same way and, therefore, your computing experience would not significantly change.

No, because some of the small apps and tools are things that wouldn't be worth a developer's time to put in the app store. If you keep putting things in the way of getting software out, at some point it isn't worth it anymore. Look at the Safari extension debacle - Apple "improved" Safari by culling the ability to install extensions from the web, forcing devs to put them into the app store instead. Now, most of the extensions I used to use are no longer available on Safari because it wasn't worth the effort. That was an overnight change that meant I had to spend the next few days/weeks ****ing around with a handful of different browsers to find one that best fit my needs. Thanks Apple, your meddling made the experience so much better.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is. Is it about choice? Well then what about Apple's choice as to how to develop their own products? What about their choice as to how to spend their R&D money? What about my choice to prefer having quality assured software (to at least a greater extent) and much more confidence that my card details are secure with Apple vs. some random dude's website? What's that...I have the choice not to install software from a third-party site? Yes, yes I do. And you all have the choice not to install apps through the app store.

It's about being able to use a computer as a computer. If I wanted a locked-down media consumption device, I would have bought an iPad. If you remove any other options except installing from the app store, it's not a choice anymore. I have dozens of little apps and tools from random developers that I trust, I should be allowed to install them from the web if I want to because I'm not a child. You already have the choice to only shop on the App Store if you prefer that, but don't take away my choice to shop elsewhere.

As for the second point, yes, I agree, you're right...it is a separate issue. But ironically you suggest that, because I find certain people's opinions going against mine, I should perhaps not join a message board because there will be discussion. So, in essence, if you don't like opinions other than your own, then GTFO?

No, but if all you're going to do is complain that people have opinions, why would you seek out a place that exists almost solely for sharing opinions.

 

[Rogifan]

Clearly, every pricing structure has its pros and cons.

There are tons of developers who release cheap or even free apps that have no clear revenue stream. It makes little sense to tax them so onerously when they are also doing a great service for the ecosystem. You just end up chasing them away.

So for me, my answer (selfish as it may be) would be to look at this issue from the perspective of the consumer, not the developer.

Ask yourself as a user - which benefits us users the most? Of course it’s the 30% revenue cut option, because that’s what helps retain the smaller developers and ensures a thriving selection of apps available for me to choose from.

Perhaps this is why I find myself quite partial to Apple’s policies in general, because they are what have made the ecosystem so attractive for me as a consumer to use, onerous as they may be for the consumer (personally, I am still waiting for more developers to implement “sign in with Apple” in their apps).

But the issue in this case isn’t about how much of cut Apple takes. The issue is whether they should be taking a cut at all. And Apple’s stated reasons for why this app must offer IAP seem flimsy. Hearing that more devs are being told their SaaS app will be rejected if they don’t offer IAP just indicates to me Apple News+, Apple TV+ and Apple Arcade aren‘t brining in the services revenues Apple is expecting so they’re squeezing devs for more money.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1273092479328247809

https://twitter.com/x/status/1273106308431044609

 

[TVOR]

So I won't even bother starting a conversation and educating you on what's going on so that you can form an opinion based on all the facts.

Said AFTER posting your opinion and trying to tell me that I am wrong...

I would have asked you to tell me where I posited that my opinion is fact...but I guess that's pointless now...

 

[Alan Wynn]

I’m not seeing anybody is “owed” anything. But I think it’s plain as day that Apple’s policies are arbitrary and aren’t enforced consistently.

Actually, you are saying that they are owed a consistent and non-arbitrary policy. They are not. As the Peoplesoft case showed, one cannot talk about a monopoly without correctly defining the market. The market in question is (at a minimum) the mobile phone market, and Apple has no where near a monopoly in it (under 50% in the U.S., under 25% in most other places).

You also look at this exclusively from the perspective of the developer, and ignore the harm to the consumer experience of being forced to deal with a million different approaches to purchasing services, and consumer unfriendly policies limiting on how many devices I can use the service for the same price.

Developers have every right to decide that they do not want to play in Apple’s sandbox. If enough of them make that decision, Apple would be forced to change. Consumers can also decide they want a less restrictive ecosystem. They can move to one of the many perfectly viable Android phones.

Apple’s ecosystem has a set of trade-offs that many of us like. Clearly not everyone (or even a majority) hence their market share is where it is. However, they those that prefer it (like me), make up a profitable enough segment that they do fine. Stop trying to argue that your view of how things should be is the only one that should be allowed. If Apple’s choices do not work for you, leave the ecosystem and live with a different set of trade-offs. Do not ruin what many of prefer.

 

[garylapointe]

App Store purchases are usually around $50 billion per year, which means $15 billion goes to Apple.

And it means that $35 billion go to people that wouldn't get it if Apple didn't make iOS.

The 30% isn't a secret that developers don't find out about before they program their app. It's the same commission rate as Google Play. https://support.google.com/googleplay/android-developer/answer/112622?hl=en

 

[jlc1978]

I think that’s the point of the EU investigation - you can’t open your own supply chain for iOS.

I find that whole argument specious. There are other choices, and Apple is only about 25% of the mobile market. It's not like anyone is forced to sell into the iOS market.

If the EU was to rule, I'd like top see them force all electronic distribution networks to use the same cut. Why should Kobi take say 30% and Apple less? Why should Spotify pay musicians peanuts instead of taking only a small cut of the subscription fees?

I suspect those companies claiming APPLE is unreasonable would scream "unfair" if the same rules were applied to them. It's not about right or wrong but profit and loss.

 

[insomniac86]

Unfortunately, this is probably true.

The app has many smart ideas (e.g., whitelisting sender's email address, attachments saved into a drive), but it should've been aimed at enterprise market where things like custom domain, single sign on, and user management matter.

An enterprise would never go with a tiny company like that. Office 365 blows it out of the water and has all the features listed and more. So this product really is for tiny companies or consumers.

 

[theotherphil]

Throw Apple out of every shopping mall in the world and let them build their own to put their stores in aswell?

How does that make any sense? Apple is paying the rent to be at those malls - and likely more than other stores due to the prime location.

 

[TVOR]

That's a very different scenario, and a multi-decade transition. If the next MacOS removed non-App Store installations, my laptop is basically stuck in time from then on (so no security updates, no future app updates, possibly broken compatibility with my phone, etc).


They probably should be criticised if they just take you money and then go "hey, I'm not working on this anymore, thanks for the money though". If there are other reasons (e.g. ongoing costs are exceeding the money the app brings in, changes to APIs or whatever are preventing fundamental functions from working, etc, then it' might be a little more understandable). But again, kinda different from gutting core functionality from $1000+ computer.


No, because some of the small apps and tools are things that wouldn't be worth a developer's time to put in the app store. If you keep putting things in the way of getting software out, at some point it isn't worth it anymore. Look at the Safari extension debacle - Apple "improved" Safari by culling the ability to install extensions from the web, forcing devs to put them into the app store instead. Now, most of the extensions I used to use are no longer available on Safari because it wasn't worth the effort. That was an overnight change that meant I had to spend the next few days/weeks ****ing around with a handful of different browsers to find one that best fit my needs. Thanks Apple, your meddling made the experience so much better.


It's about being able to use a computer as a computer. If I wanted a locked-down media consumption device, I would have bought an iPad. If you remove any other options except installing from the app store, it's not a choice anymore. I have dozens of little apps and tools from random developers that I trust, I should be allowed to install them from the web if I want to because I'm not a child. You already have the choice to only shop on the App Store if you prefer that, but don't take away my choice to shop elsewhere.


No, but if all you're going to do is complain that people have opinions, why would you seek out a place that exists almost solely for sharing opinions.

Lots to unpack here...

First paragraph...I am still using a 2009 Mac Pro running OS 10.11. There are plenty of things that the new versions of the OS could bring to me, but I can't update beyond 10.11 with this hardware. I do still get security updates from time to time though. But what you are talking about is Apple obsoleting hardware overnight with the inclusion of an App Store for Mac. That would only happen in a new OS version. So if you continued running the older OS you would still be able to load apps as you do now. And chances are you could still be running a functional computer that is capable of earning you money over 10 years later. So maybe not "multi-decade"...but certainly not overnight either.

Second paragraph...you see that is a fundamental disagreement from me. If I run a business and supply a product or service, it is absolutely my basic human right to decide, for no reason other than I am bored if I so choose, to no longer work on the business (or specific product). To suggest that it is OK to criticise somebody who no longer wants to do a particular job is bordering on promoting servitude! And that's really NOT OK!

Third paragraph...I will admit that I may be missing something here but you say "Not worth the time" to put something in the app store. But isn't that a really simple process? It's not like the app needs to be redeveloped or recompiled or anything is it? Surely it's just...sign up...set up Dev account...upload to App Store...profit? If people are making money from the App Store (albeit at a reduced rate), then how is putting your product in a global marketplace and potentially getting more sales not worth the effort? Maybe a Dev can weigh in here about how long and/or complicated the process to get accepted as a Dev is and how complex it is to upload an App to the App Store. It certainly seems like an awful lot of complaining over having to do extra work when they are advocating setting up their own website and marketing and promoting that website as being the "easy" alternative!!

Fourth paragraph...please...just answer me this...how does changing from installing an app from a Dev's website to installing from the App Store turn a computer into a "locked-down media consumption device"??? So if I install Adobe CC from their website...I have a powerful content creation machine...but if I install it from the App Store I can't create content with Adobe CC...I can only consume it? Come on...you must realise that doesn't make sense!! I respect that you have dozens of little apps from random developers, and perhaps your workflow would be impossible without them, but if they are "little" apps from "random" developers then the Mac community at large probably will not lose anything! What about the dropping of 32 bit apps? That probably had a similar effect...as did the dropping of 8 bit apps back in the annals of time...but progress needs to happen. You cannot support platforms and technologies for ever...and I am sure that most people realise that. But it is a problem when the same EFFECT happens for a different reason because........Apple is a greedy corporation?? I personally prefer to focus on the effect rather than the cause...but YMMV...

Final paragraph...I am not complaining that people have opinions. I am glad that they do. I am merely pointing out that I think people are wrong. And looking at the numbers of posts on this particular thread, there are far more people calling out the evil Apple than supporting them. So I am in a minority here and I am totally OK with that. I am simply sharing my opinion...and as you can see, I have no issue with taking the time to reply to somebody's thoughts and opinions in depth. I don't summarily dismiss them. Equally I don't agree with them (in this case). But you, along with a couple of others, seem to be insinuating that my kind aren't welcome here (words my own...not implying that anybody has actually said that!!). And, again, anybody is totally entitled to that opinion if they have it. But I have as much right to post my views (as long as they aren't personally offensive or hateful or break forum rules) as anybody else, however oppositional they are.

 

[jeabraham]

Note too that Apple takes nothing from Uber or Lyft transactions even though it’s very realistic those two companies wouldn’t exist if not for the App Store.

Selling real services is not covered by the same rules as selling app content or functionality.

 

[jlc1978]

Good. We will make Apple suffer. The EU now has even more arguments against Apple. Time to break up the iOS App Store. Apple can decide to not offer their devices in the EU

Heh. Apple could simply say "no subscription based apps in the EU" and watch them squirm as they lose subscribers; although Apple would get a lot of flack for that so I doubt they would even go that far.

OTOH, lest say the EU limits cut to 20%, Apple could simply raise year 2 to 20% from 15% and make up for lost revenue over time and hit content providers in the wallet longer.

Of course, given the Eu's ability to react quickly I wouldn't be surprised if some of the companies suing no longer exist by the time the EU reaches a decision.

 

[TVOR]

Throw Apple out of every shopping mall in the world and let them build their own to put their stores in aswell?

Many Apple stores around the world aren't actually in "malls"...there is a world outside the USA you know...

And before you say "Let them build their own buildings then"...they have in many cases. But as theotherphil said, they are paying for the privilege of using somebody else's infrastructure. If the rent is too high...they don't open a store there...simple!

 

[theotherphil]

No. And that’s again an issue that the EU Anti Trust people will raise.

Apples terms are clear - digital goods incur a charge. Physical goods do not. Hence why you can buy a pair of shoes or a book but not a kindle book. This is why Uber/ Lyft don’t incur a charge - the payment is for a physical service.

 

[senttoschool]

Selling real services is not covered by the same rules as selling app content or functionality.

The app Uber doesn't work if it can't sell its ride-hailing service. In fact, Uber and Lyft are selling subscription ride-hailing services.

In addition, Spotify is a real service. Spotify's music doesn't stream from Apple's servers. Spotify has real human beings producing real sounds. Spotify has a huge offline component to its business.
[automerge]1592403052[/automerge]

Apples terms are clear - digital goods incur a charge. Physical goods do not. Hence why you can buy a pair of shoes or a book but not a kindle book. This is why Uber/ Lyft don’t incur a charge - the payment is for a physical service.

Both Uber and Lyft now sell subscriptions.

 

[ignatius345]

I can see Apple taking a cut for apps that run on their OS and their App Store -- but 30% feels really steep.

Remember, this drives up prices for US, the buyers of those apps. Every developer who gets nearly a third of their app income skimmed by Apple has to either raise their prices, go to pricy subscriptions, or just cut back on development.