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

[TVOR]

Yes, I understand your point as explained here. The earlier analogy made it sound like a bait and switch. I guess on a smaller scale, this is the same thing as, say, Microsoft Office being one price, whether you want one of the apps or all of them (or use other included services like OneDrive). Would it be nice if they offered people just Word for $15/year vs having to pay for the whole suite for $70/year? Yes, but that's probably never going to happen.

I'm sure that would be nice...but using that concept, why aren't the EU stepping in to tell all satellite/cable TV companies to un-bundle channels and offer everything a la carte?

There are plenty of examples of tech (and other companies) bundling things without giving the customer (Devs in the example we are talking about here) the option to have a true a la carte package...but no EU intervention and no internet outrage! Well...maybe some internet outrage...but no EU for sure...
[automerge]1592413317[/automerge]

That's fair, but the difference I see is that I can use a Google Doc or Pages or LibreOffice, and on and on, in place of Office if I don't like Microsoft's price. If I don't like Apple's price, I have no other options for selling my app to iOS users. And yes, there's Android, but that does nothing to address the massive chunk of users I'd miss out on by not having an iOS option.

Respectfully, how is what you are saying any different to saying "I like Ferraris...but if I don't like their price I have no option for buying one and getting hot chicks. And yes, there's (INSERT BRAND HERE) but that does nothing to address the massive chunk of hot chicks I'd miss out on by not driving a Ferrari!"???

I get your point, but it's a "Pay to Play" market. I wish I could get my business services in front of big international clients to expand and grow my business. I could probably do that if I paid an agency five figures. I don't have five figures to do that so I do what I can myself. I can't say that it's unfair that the agency wanted me to pay XXX amount to have access to the market I wanted. They have the connections...they have built up their business reputation...I have to pay if I want to access that and the benefits it brings. Is it overpriced? Depends...if it increases my turnover by more than what it costs me...then no, it's not overpriced...it's absolutely worth it! Especially if they do it on a commission basis...literally what is there to lose?

A long time ago, and in a different life, I had a manager/agent representing me and he took 20% commission on all my work. When I was starting out he was crucial in building my profile and getting me more established. He earned every bit of that 20%. Later, when all he really did was answer the phone, take a booking and invoice me, you could argue "Is that really worth 20%?" And my answer would be yes, absolutely, because it was his groundwork that built my reputation to the point where people where calling HIM to book me...so the fact that he had it easier later on was relevant to me. He took his 20%, and I still earned a good wage, a wage I wouldn't have earned without him laying the foundations for my success...

 

[Rogifan]

It seems pretty clear what they did, they refused to offer an in-app purchase option for their product. Not sure that "deserve" is the right word, however. You talk as though there is an inherent right to be able to distribute through Apple's market and further that everyone should be able to install applications without even going through the App Store. Here we fundamentally disagree. Those people who want that experience have the option to do whatever they want with a device, can purchase one of the many Android devices.



Let me ask you two questions, just to clarify your position: Is Apple allowed to change or elaborate on their policies? If they are, would you be fine with it if they made a clear statement that products targeting consumers required in-app purchase?

If not, it does not really matter.

I think it is Apple's market and they should be able to grant or deny access completely arbitrarily. Apple controls a very small percentage of the worldwide mobile phone market. It may be a very profitable segment, but that does not make it a monopoly. You have every right to want what you want and even to argue that it would benefit Apple and/or some of their customers. The two biggest issues I have are:

1. Arguing that it is a clear benefit to consumers, when in reality it mostly benefits developers and harms consumers in many ways.
2. Arguing that, despite there being a robust mobile phone market of which Apple is only a small part, the government should step in and force Apple to adopt your position.

I understand you want what you want. I prefer things the way they are. If at some point conditions change and I cannot get enough applications or services I want, I will consider switching. If enough people do that, Apple will change course or die. Very simple.

This is where we disagree. I don’t think Apple should be able to grant or deny access arbitrarily. I think there should be clear, understandable rules. Of course Apple has the right to change those rules but the changes should be documented and communicated to developers. They shouldn’t find out about them via an app rejection. In this case the developer thought they were following all the rules. This wasn’t a case of the developer knowing they had to offer IAP but choosing not to do so. There is nothing in Apple’s app review policies that mention business vs consumer apps. The explanation that this is a consumer app and therefore requires IAP seems like BS to me. It seems like Apple making up some policy on the fly to justify their actions here. No one should support that.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Allow me to make this clear, I agree with Apple, but I also know that they are in the wrong. And there’s a very, very, very simple solution that they could use, that would solve the majority of their problems.
Add a toggle somewhere deep in the Settings app, for an advanced mode, where side loading apps is allowed. Then, when you decide to sideload an app, you get tons and tons of warnings before opening it, just like you do on macOS.Boom!
The majority of customers will still use the App Store, the majority of developers will still use the App Store because of discoverability, and Apple loses nothing.

 

[usagora]

...but that does nothing to address the massive chunk of users I'd miss out on by not having an iOS option.

Which is why I assume developers pay Apple 30% in order to access that "massive chunk of users." They think it's worth it. If they didn't, then they wouldn't do it. Obviously anyone in their right mind would prefer to pay less, but it is what it is.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Believe me, the amount of regular consumers with a Mac who just download stuff from the App Store is huge. Most of them have no idea how to download an app from someone’s website, then open the DMG file, then drag it to their applications folder, then right click it, then click open, then click OK, then finally get it to run after excepting all the terms and conditions. If it was that complicated on iOS, which believe me it would be, then the majority of customers wouldn’t do it, but that small amount who want too still can.
when Spotify complained about no Siri support, Apple added Siri support. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them do something like this. Not only would it getthe EU off their back, it would make developers happy, an apple wouldn’t lose much

 

[usagora]

I'm sure that would be nice...but using that concept, why aren't the EU stepping in to tell all satellite/cable TV companies to un-bundle channels and offer everything a la carte?

There are plenty of examples of tech (and other companies) bundling things without giving the customer (Devs in the example we are talking about here) the option to have a true a la carte package...but no EU intervention and no internet outrage! Well...maybe some internet outrage...but no EU for sure...

I agree. I'm not arguing that they should.

 

[Rogifan]

Allow me to make this clear, I agree with Apple, but I also know that they are in the wrong. And there’s a very, very, very simple solution that they could use, that would solve the majority of their problems.
Add a toggle somewhere deep in the Settings app, for an advanced mode, where side loading apps is allowed. Then, when you decide to sideload an app, you get tons and tons of warnings before opening it, just like you do on macOS.Boom!
The majority of customers will still use the App Store, the majority of developers will still use the App Store because of discoverability, and Apple loses nothing.

How does side loading solve their problems. The problem seems to be Apple needing to make more money from so-called services now that hardware sales aren’t growing like the used to. And the bulk of services revenue comes from the App Store, specifically IAP. Allowing customers to sideload apps doesn’t solve anything.

 

[BuddyRich]

Just because an app relies on remote storage, doesn’t mean that it is a "cloud storage" service. By that definition, all apps would be cloud storage services, and therefore reader apps.

Hey is an email service and client, not a cloud storage service.

In case this is still confusing to you, the following are cloud storage services: DropBox, Box, Google Drive, OneDrive.

Thats not exactly what I said. Its not just remote storage, but also remote processing. If the app is just a front end IMO it shouldn't need to offer an IAP. On the other hand if an app stores its info remotely but does all the processing on the phone to that information, than its probably an app. I don't know how Hey does.

As for cloud storage -> I know what cloud storage servers are -> but how are they functionally different than an email server? Its just goes to Apple's arbitrariness to differentiate them.

 

[falainber]

Believe me, the amount of regular consumers with a Mac who just download stuff from the App Store is huge. Most of them have no idea how to download an app from someone’s website, then open the DM G file, then drag it to their applications folder, then right click it, then click open, then click OK, then finally get it to run after excepting all the terms and conditions. If it was that complicated on iOS, which believe me it would be, then the majority of customers wouldn’t do it, but that small amount who want too still can.

Firstly, you obviously exaggerated the difficulty of installing an app on a computer. More importantly, it does not have to work this way on the phone. The app developers can easily make it work so that clicking on a single button/link on their web site will be enough to install the app. Even more sensible way would be to have alternative app stores. Users would have exactly the same experience (or better) at these other stores but perhaps better app selection.

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

How does side loading solve their problems. The problem seems to be Apple needing to make more money from so-called services now that hardware sales aren’t growing like the used to. And the bulk of services revenue comes from the App Store, specifically IAP. Allowing customers to sideload apps doesn’t solve anything.

This email app can charge its ridiculous $99 program, and not have apple take a 30% cut. Also, that’s an alternate way to avoid the EU.
If sideloading apps was an option, even if it was buried deep within the operating system, that would mean that the App Store was not the only distribution method. so the App Store would no longer be a monopoly on the iOS platform
[automerge]1592414746[/automerge]

Firstly, you obviously exaggerated the difficulty of installing an app on a computer. More importantly, it does not have to work this way on the phone. The app developers can easily make it work so that clicking on a single button/link on their web site will be enough to install the app. Even more sensible way would be to have alternative app stores. Users would have exactly the same experience (or better) at these other stores but perhaps better app selection.

First of all, coming from someone who’s had to deal with Catalina for the last year, and who has had to show people how to download apps that are not on the App Store on the Mac, it is that complicated for the majority of consumers. Especially now that Apple is putting more and more restrictions and dialog boxes that you have to click through.
Also, if sideloading apps was possible, then obviously someone could make a website that works like an alternative App Store.
The majority of people would still not use it, which is the difference.

 

[confirmed]

Does Apple allow developers to offer an In-App Subscription at higher prices than what might be available going directly to the developer? Specifically, could Hey continue to charge $99 going directly to the developer's site, but either charge 30% more through In-App Purchase, or even something absurd like $999 - just to appease Apple, while driving most customers to a direct purchase?

The down side would of course be bad reviews from customers who aren't aware they can get it cheaper from the developer or frustrated by the higher cost through In-App. It shouldn't be necessary, but I'm curious if this would be an option.

 

[boss.king]

Respectfully, how is what you are saying any different to saying "I like Ferraris...but if I don't like their price I have no option for buying one and getting hot chicks. And yes, there's (INSERT BRAND HERE) but that does nothing to address the massive chunk of hot chicks I'd miss out on by not driving a Ferrari!"???

Not having a Ferarri doesn't stop me from approaching women, but I guess in this analogy it would make it a lot harder. Not listing my app in the app store makes it literally impossible to get my app out to iOS users.

I get your point, but it's a "Pay to Play" market. I wish I could get my business services in front of big international clients to expand and grow my business. I could probably do that if I paid an agency five figures. I don't have five figures to do that so I do what I can myself. I can't say that it's unfair that the agency wanted me to pay XXX amount to have access to the market I wanted. They have the connections...they have built up their business reputation...I have to pay if I want to access that and the benefits it brings. Is it overpriced? Depends...if it increases my turnover by more than what it costs me...then no, it's not overpriced...it's absolutely worth it! Especially if they do it on a commission basis...literally what is there to lose?

But that commission is based on the devs work promoting their app. The App Store is, quite frankly, a dumpster fire for app discoverability. If I stumble across a useful app, 9 times out of 10 I've heard about it from a podcast, a youtube video, an article/interview, or a friend. Apple is essentially offering a cluttered warehouse to store your stuff (and charging for that) but then also charging you when you sell your own stuff because they rang it up on their till. Again, this is an imperfect analogy because software doesn't translate perfectly into the real world.

Yes, this is legal. Yes, they have the money and power to throw their weight around and set the terms of the deal, and people are free to opt out if they don't like it (often with clear harm done to their business). But that doesn't mean anyone needs to be happy about it. It's the kind of practice I'd expect from the old Microsoft or even Facebook. Legal, but not ethically above board.

 

[TVOR]

I agree. I'm not arguing that they should.

Yes sorry...perhaps I should have quoted somebody else...I was agreeing with you!!
[automerge]1592416227[/automerge]

Not having a Ferarri doesn't stop me from approaching women, but I guess in this analogy it would make it a lot harder. Not listing my app in the app store makes it literally impossible to get my app out to iOS users.



But that commission is based on the devs work promoting their app. The App Store is, quite frankly, a dumpster fire for app discoverability. If I stumble across a useful app, 9 times out of 10 I've heard about it from a podcast, a youtube video, an article/interview, or a friend. Apple is essentially offering a cluttered warehouse to store your stuff (and charging for that) but then also charging you when you sell your own stuff because they rang it up on their till. Again, this is an imperfect analogy because software doesn't translate perfectly into the real world.

Yes, this is legal. Yes, they have the money and power to throw their weight around and set the terms of the deal, and people are free to opt out if they don't like it (often with clear harm done to their business). But that doesn't mean anyone needs to be happy about it. It's the kind of practice I'd expect from the old Microsoft or even Facebook. Legal, but not ethically above board.

I think the impasse between our points of view is that you are separating iOS users out as a separate class when I am viewing them as part of "phone users". To continue with my Ferrari analogy if I may...not having the Ferrari prevents you from approaching a certain kind of woman (not going to elaborate but I am sure you know what I mean). You may say that it doesn't prevent you approaching them, which is fair, but it certainly prevents you from succeeding, so the end result is the same. There are still millions of women out there, more than there are of the "Ferrari type"...but if you also want to have a chance with the Ferrari women then that's the price you have to pay!!

As for the commission thing...look...I hear what you are saying...but you and many others keep circling back to "it will harm the Dev's business" when it won't be "harming" them...it won't be reducing their business...it simply prevents them from growing it in a certain market sector. If you are starting from nothing then how can restriction from playing in a certain market "harm" you? You won't have lost anything so how do you quantify the "harm"?

More to the point, choosing to enter the iOS market will only add to your revenue, albeit at a lower profit per sale, but still a net increase. If you feel that the revenue gained from iOS app development - when factoring in the 30% commission - makes it not worth your time them nobody is forcing you to work on an iOS app. How can I explain this...OK...if you agree a price for somebody to paint your house...and then they turn up and do it...and then after they say "Actually...thinking about it...my time is worth more than our agreed price...I want more money"...would you pay them more or would you tell them that you have a "signed" agreement and that they can't change the terms of that after the fact...
[automerge]1592416292[/automerge]

Does Apple allow developers to offer an In-App Subscription at higher prices than what might be available going directly to the developer? Specifically, could Hey continue to charge $99 going directly to the developer's site, but either charge 30% more through In-App Purchase, or even something absurd like $999 - just to appease Apple, while driving most customers to a direct purchase?

The down side would of course be bad reviews from customers who aren't aware they can get it cheaper from the developer or frustrated by the higher cost through In-App. It shouldn't be necessary, but I'm curious if this would be an option.

I can't imagine that Apple has any control, even with their "tyrannical" policies, over what price a Dev can set for their app...would be interested to hear from an actual Dev though.
[automerge]1592416441[/automerge]

Firstly, you obviously exaggerated the difficulty of installing an app on a computer. More importantly, it does not have to work this way on the phone. The app developers can easily make it work so that clicking on a single button/link on their web site will be enough to install the app. Even more sensible way would be to have alternative app stores. Users would have exactly the same experience (or better) at these other stores but perhaps better app selection.

Yeah possibly isn't that in depth of a process...but seriously...even if it was...if for the "majority" of people that is too hard...then perhaps the world needs to introduce the equivalent of a "Driving License" for computers because damn...that is BASIC B*TCH stuff!!!

 

[confirmed]

The discrepancy between what's allowed for business vs consumer services makes absolutely no sense. What's worse, this behavior encourages "free" apps that are monetized via advertising, often utilizing strategies to track and target their customers. Apps like Facebook/Facebook Messenger and Gmail which make their money not by charging you for services, but by utilizing and sharing information about you.

Apple publicly takes pride in their stance on privacy, but doesn't offer a level playing field for companies that want to offer a product with the same aspirations. Personally, as much as I can afford, I lean towards online services which charge me, rather than use me, for services.

 

[kuwxman]

I know, right? I mean, how long did we go shopping at retail stores, which ... take about a 30% cut of the purchase price of everything you buy there? Well, the answer to that is that even my family still shops at retail stores sometimes.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

I'm sure you've been called out already, but that is a laughably horrible example.

 

[jlc1978]

I'm a software engineer. I know all about servers and bandwidth. The $5 is just an exaggeration (but it's not too far off for most apps).

Really? Host 6300GB of data, push apps from that to millions of users on a 24x7 basis for $5 or so? Not to mention update, handle payments, control access, translate to mul;ti[ple languages and follow laws that vary by jurisdiction?

 

[Lounge vibes 05]

Yes sorry...perhaps I should have quoted somebody else...I was agreeing with you!!
[automerge]1592416227[/automerge]


I think the impasse between our points of view is that you are separating iOS users out as a separate class when I am viewing them as part of "phone users". To continue with my Ferrari analogy if I may...not having the Ferrari prevents you from approaching a certain kind of woman (not going to elaborate but I am sure you know what I mean). You may say that it doesn't prevent you approaching them, which is fair, but it certainly prevents you from succeeding, so the end result is the same. There are still millions of women out there, more than there are of the "Ferrari type"...but if you also want to have a chance with the Ferrari women then that's the price you have to pay!!

As for the commission thing...look...I hear what you are saying...but you and many others keep circling back to "it will harm the Dev's business" when it won't be "harming" them...it won't be reducing their business...it simply prevents them from growing it in a certain market sector. If you are starting from nothing then how can restriction from playing in a certain market "harm" you? You won't have lost anything so how do you quantify the "harm"?

More to the point, choosing to enter the iOS market will only add to your revenue, albeit at a lower profit per sale, but still a net increase. If you feel that the revenue gained from iOS app development - when factoring in the 30% commission - makes it not worth your time them nobody is forcing you to work on an iOS app. How can I explain this...OK...if you agree a price for somebody to paint your house...and then they turn up and do it...and then after they say "Actually...thinking about it...my time is worth more than our agreed price...I want more money"...would you pay them more or would you tell them that you have a "signed" agreement and that they can't change the terms of that after the fact...
[automerge]1592416292[/automerge]


I can't imagine that Apple has any control, even with their "tyrannical" policies, over what price a Dev can set for their app...would be interested to hear from an actual Dev though.
[automerge]1592416441[/automerge]


Yeah possibly isn't that in depth of a process...but seriously...even if it was...if for the "majority" of people that is too hard...then perhaps the world needs to introduce the equivalent of a "Driving License" for computers because damn...that is BASIC B*TCH stuff!!!

for us maybe, but the average consumer doesn’t, and shouldn’t, know the difference between a .DMG, a .APP and a .IPA.
Sure, you can be condescending all day, but Apple has always pride itself on its ease-of-use, and with the App Store, it’s literally super simple. You click download, and the app goes exactly where it should.
That’s the reason that more and more apps are moving towards the Mac App Store, because it’s just so much easier. Same with iOS.
If offloading apps was an option, not only would it remove this single distribution problem that Apple has, but the majority of customers wouldn’t use it because it’s complicated, so the App Store loses nothing. The apps that won’t be in the App Store are probably very niche apps, so it’s The developers loss.
In a perfect world, Apple would only cater to the developers, and wouldn’t take any cut. But the truth is, we don’t live in a perfect world, and Apple cares much more about its own interests than the developers. Their a business, they’re in it to make money. And if making money means taking a cut of the developers money, then that’s what they’re gonna do.
So if offloading was added as an option, developers would have two choices.
#1: go to the App Store, reach as many customers as possible, but have apple take a cut of your profits.
#2: handle the distribution on your own, keep all the profits, but reach a lot less customers.
As for the developers charging more for the in app purchase, this has actually been done a lot. YouTube TV was an extra five dollars if you bought it through the app, whereas if you bought it on the website it was five dollars cheaper.

 

[ss2cire]

Anyone knows why Apple allows Netflix and Spotify apps with external subscriptions?

From what I understand, Netflix and Spotify aren't content creation apps (such as email would be) so therefore they dont have to have in-app purchases.

"Hey" allows creation of content, and why wouldn't it? I wouldn't pay $100/year for only the ability to read my email... so therefore it is breaking the rules, again, specifically because it's a content creation app.

 

[Rogifan]

From what I understand, Netflix and Spotify aren't content creation apps (such as email would be) so therefore they dont have to have in-app purchases.

"Hey" allows creation of content, and why wouldn't it? I wouldn't pay $100/year for only the ability to read my email... so therefore it is breaking the rules, again, specifically because it's a content creation app.

Where in the App Store policies does it say content creation apps must include IAP? Or is it any app that Apple doesn’t deem to be a “reader” app must include IAP?

 

[TVOR]

for us maybe, but the average consumer doesn’t, and shouldn’t, know the difference between a .DMG, a .APP and a .IPA.
Sure, you can be condescending all day, but Apple has always pride itself on its ease-of-use, and with the App Store, it’s literally super simple. You click download, and the app goes exactly where it should.
That’s the reason that more and more apps are moving towards the Mac App Store, because it’s just so much easier. Same with iOS.
If offloading apps was an option, not only would it remove this single distribution problem that Apple has, but the majority of customers wouldn’t use it because it’s complicated, so the App Store loses nothing. The apps that won’t be in the App Store are probably very niche apps, so it’s The developers loss.
In a perfect world, Apple would only cater to the developers, and wouldn’t take any cut. But the truth is, we don’t live in a perfect world, and Apple cares much more about its own interests than the developers. Their a business, they’re in it to make money. And if making money means taking a cut of the developers money, then that’s what they’re gonna do.
So if offloading was added as an option, developers would have two choices.
#1: go to the App Store, reach as many customers as possible, but have apple take a cut of your profits.
#2: handle the distribution on your own, keep all the profits, but reach a lot less customers.
As for the developers charging more for the in app purchase, this has actually been done a lot. YouTube TV was an extra five dollars if you bought it through the app, whereas if you bought it on the website it was five dollars cheaper.

OK...maybe was being a bit sarcastic...but I do think that there really needs to be some serious efforts to increase computer literacy if the DMB/APP/IPA issue is a big one for the average consumer. Ten or fifteen years ago I wouldn't have questioned it as much, but PC's/Laptops have been pretty mainstream for between two and three decades now so most people 40 and under would have grown up with them and even people in their 50s and 60s should have had a decent amount of time using them. But perhaps you're right...perhaps people have just grown accustomed to everything being too easy...that's a different philosophical question altogether!

As for your comments on offloading...I am inclined to agree in principle, but I made a comment earlier that the walled garden approach of iOS seems to have worked pretty well in keeping malware and viruses to a minimum. I appreciate that it isn't all about that but having that walled garden and proper QC of everything going through an App Store would give me more confidence that I wouldn't have my machine hijacked by something nefarious!!

I guess what frustrates me (because I really can't wrap my head around it) is the fact that, as you say, the apps that wouldn't be in the App Store are very niche apps...which means that they won't sell loads...which means that it presumably won't be "make or break" for the Devs to have to pay a commission. Or, if their volumes are that low that it would be a deal breaker then they could put the price up, because presumably the people that use these apps NEED these apps and would therefore pay for an update to allow them to continue to use the app.

Is that anti-consumer? I don't think so as the Dev would presumably have put out at update at some point which would most likely have been a paid update if it wasn't a "point" update...so there would have been a cost outlay to continue using it anyway!

I know everybody has their one unique situation but it does feel like things like this end up being the majority being told to compromise for the sake of the minority.

 

[macduke]

Yeah, this is some Grade A BS and likely to land Apple in hot water with various regulatory bodies around the world. Why do some apps get a pass and others don't? I feel like Apple isn't going to end up in a good way because of this. It would be better if they caved on this because if the governments come after them they're going to require back doors, third party apps outside the App Store which will weaken security and more. At least maybe we'll get the ability to replace default apps out of that, but that's also rumored for iOS 14 so we'll see next week.

 

[Rogifan]

This email app can charge its ridiculous $99 program, and not have apple take a 30% cut. Also, that’s an alternate way to avoid the EU.
If sideloading apps was an option, even if it was buried deep within the operating system, that would mean that the App Store was not the only distribution method. so the App Store would no longer be a monopoly on the iOS platform.

Apple would never allow that.

 

[I7guy]

I wonder if the people who are critical of Apple are the target demographic for this app? Or is it because any excuse to criticize Apple for anything that comes along, is proper justification? Unless there is another Judge Harold Green on the bench, I don't think there will be much change to the app store.

 

[tongxinshe]

By that extension, you're OK with Apple having to pay network operators 30% of any product sold through the internet they provide them. They can ofc build their own network if they don't like it, right!?!?

If the network operators do charge nothing to all other people who use the same network but sells nothing (thus earns no money) through that network.

 

[bb9]

A new email app called "Hey" from the team at Basecamp has run into trouble with Apple for refusing to offer a subscription option that can be purchased in the iOS app.

Hey, which launched on Monday, is priced at $99 per year. Subscriptions for the service must be purchased on the Hey website and are not offered in the iOS app because Hey's developers don't want to pay Apple a 15 to 30 percent cut of their fees.

Apple, however, has told the Hey team that customers need to be able to purchase the service in the iOS app and that if in-app purchases are not implemented, the Hey app could be removed from the App Store. Apple has a long running rule that apps can't link to outside purchase options and must use the in-app purchasing tools when offering paid content or subscriptions, but many apps skirt that rule by avoiding in-app purchases and not providing links to outside websites.

Netflix and Spotify, for example, do not allow customers to sign up for or subscribe to their services on the iPhone or the iPad, and do not link to their respective websites. Each app instead offers a message about sign ups being unavailable in the app.

The Hey email app does the same thing, and as Basecamp CTO David Heinemeier Hansson explains in an interview with Protocol, the team thought that it would be exempt from Apple's rules because it's following in the footsteps of apps like Netflix.

Downloading the Hey app presents a simple sign in screen with no sign up option, and tapping on the "Help Me" link informs users that there are no sign up options in the app. Like Netflix and Spotify, it does not direct users to the website to sign up.

Updates for Hey have been stalled until the developers comply with Apple's request to add in-app purchase options, and despite appeals and escalation requests, Apple has held firm on the requirement. Apple says that Hey does not qualify as a "reader" app, which means new users need to be able to sign up within the app using in-app purchases.It's not entirely clear why Apple is requiring Hey to provide an in-app subscription option when it allows Netflix and Spotify to decline to offer in-app purchase options while still having their apps in the App Store.

Hey's developers do not intend to comply with Apple's request for in-app purchase options. "There is never in a million years a way that I am paying Apple a third of our revenues," Heinemeier Hansson told Protocol. 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."

Update: Apple provided a statement to Protocol and said that it made a mistake approving the Hey app in the first place when it didn't conform to Apple's guidelines. Apple said that sign-in only apps are allowed for business services, but not consumer products.

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

What I find obscene are people believing they have the god given right to use other people‘s stuff for free. Maybe do your home work a bit better next time before starting to code.