Really? What kind of email service demands that price? Genuinely curious.
Fastmail - few bucks a month. Stunning level of service.
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
Really? What kind of email service demands that price? Genuinely curious.
Fastmail - few bucks a month. Stunning level of service.
IMO the EU should basically make an exception here. Fine them equivalent to their global annual revenue, reduce thecut to 10% globally, and force sideloading like on the MAC. If not, quit EU for good.
That works both ways. Without 3rd party apps, the iPhone wouldn't be what it is today. And developers already pay an annual fee that should cover Apple's cost.
To me, it’s the same argument as taxation.
While Apple probably is profitable enough to subsidise their own App Store, they don’t. If we look at the App Store as an independent entity, one cannot deny that it costs money to run, and a lot of it. Apple employs a ton of people to help vet apps and manage the platform, and the costs of managing all this is definitely more than what can be covered by the $100 annual subscription paid by developers. Then there are editorials and curated lists and the like.
Bottom line is - the App Store takes a ton of money to operate.
As such, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that since developers are the ones who have their apps hosted on Apple’s servers, and whose app submissions are requiring people to vet through them first, that they be the ones to help foot the bills involved in running the App Store.
We could argue until the cows come home about what a reasonable cut ought to be (30%? 15%?), it’s all academic. From an individual’s standpoint, of course I want to keep every last cent for myself and not pay out any more than I have to. That’s why companies like Apple employ lawyers to help them get away with paying the absolute minimum amount of tax they have to, while staying within the confines of the law. As the government, I wouldn’t be happy with it, and that’s why Apple is in hot soup with some countries right now.
Replace “government” with “Apple” and “Apple” with “developers” and you have the exact same scenario all over again. Apple is not obligated to run the App Store for free and at a loss (even if one can argue that it is the App Store and the thriving app ecosystem it enables which has made the iphone as popular as it is today). Money is required for its upkeep, and its citizens (ie: the developers) ought to rightfully share in its upkeep, loathe as they may be to fork out a single cent more than they want to.
And like any citizen, the only way to get out of paying tax is to either make no money (ie: free apps), or move to another country with a more favourable tax structure (ie: don’t release apps in the App Store; move to android). Otherwise, it feels weird to go in knowing fully well the rules, then turn around and cry murder when you knowingly flout the rules and get called out by Apple for it.
What Apple has done is unpopular, but I don’t see it as wrong.
And no, I don’t accept the “Netflix has been getting away with it, an exception can be made for Hey as well” argument. And then another app is going to want the same treatment, and then another, and pretty soon, you have more and more apps circumventing App Store payment rules, which in turn contributes less money to the running of the App Store, and I guess one can see how it quickly becomes a slippery slope.
Last edited:
I get how the developer feels. "No way I will offer a third of..." But the answer at that point seems, OK. Don't offer the app and don't pay 30% of anything. If Safeway won't pay me want I want to be on their shelf I can't expect them to change the amount of money I receive. They will not carry my product. So offer a website that a user can make a shortcut to. All done. It's an odd issue. I get that companies want access to customers, but what other market doesn't ask a fee? And if you don't want to pay, then don't sell it there. Apple must not offer a good enough incentive so find a different market. No?
[automerge]1592343722[/automerge]
[automerge]1592343722[/automerge]
You're mixing platform and pipes here. There are many other platforms for this guy to sell his dumb email app. He can just skip iOS? Why is that an issue?
They charge the same 30%. But it’s optional. App developers are allowed to have their own payment system and then Google gets 0.
You can’t read other email accounts in Hey, nor can you view a hey email account without using their app. You are basically paying $100 a year for a @heyemail.com email account.
While the app has some interesting features, I think the company is blind when it comes to being able to see the consumer target audience.
Also, can we talk about the fact that these guys think an email client is worth $99.00 a year?
He seems to be conflating two different issues. The issue here seems to be consistency. This app is being treated differently than other apps that work in a similar fashion. Whether Apple takes a cut and what percentage that cut is is irrelevant to this app rejection. Even if Apple is treating this app as a “multi platform services” app and not a “reader” app it seems like the same policies should apply and users should be able to subscribe outside the app.
Why? It does not matter. They can price their product how they see fit.
In any case, it's not just an app but an email service. Superhuman charges $30/month and seems to be doing fine. I guess some people want to use the Rolls Royce of email services.
$100 a year for an email app and they are saying Apple is greedy?
Yeah, these terms are complete ********. Apple chooses to interpret them differently. It's not fair to assume from the developers that they will get different treatment than other apps (spotify, netflix, amazon prime, are notable examples). And of course, Apple interprets them in such a way that all the big companies that can take them to court and force an actual interpretation of these rules won't have an incentive to do, and all smaller developers can go f**** themselves, go bankrupt and take it to court if they want. Apple lawyer's are excited about their paycheck. In what world is this ok?They did not. See my earlier post (#29)
Apple Threatens to Remove Email App 'Hey' From App Store Over Lack of In-App Subscription Option [Updated]
Well, then I guess you better start developing for another platform then. While Apple not being consistent in enforcing their rules is not right (assuming that's true and no pertinent details are being looked over), that doesn't excuse breaking the rules in the first place. By the way, I...forums.macrumors.com
Does logging in a service qualify as unlocking functionality? I don't think it should. Are you allowed to download emails but not to reply to them unless you pay? That's unlocking functionality. But again, this is all up to interpretation which Apple doesn't do consistently.
The more related rules are also completely arbitrary, "reader" apps? lmao. You know what should be done? Instead of saying, it's ok for Apple to come up with rules and terms that are ill-defined and are arbitrarily interpreted and enforced by Apple itself? Someone should regulate app stores and Apple. (I said the R word, omg)
"
- 3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage, and approved services such as classroom management apps), provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods are not designed to discourage use of in-app purchase.
- 3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services: Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multiplatform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase."
it's not even a reinvention of e-mail. it's just a bunch of "smart" services built around an old protocol.
Just include a one-time in-app purchase of 99¢ to get the hey.com email address as part of the trial, but then send a welcome e-mail or something to the new user with a link to the website for the extended "support plan" subscription of $99, so they can use that email address (and all the other features) beyond the 14-day trial period.
Netflix doesn’t allow you to watch programming without either a trial or a subscription — you must sign in and either already be a paying user or signal your intent to be (on Netflix’s site) before consuming content. There’s no analogous Netflix offering to, say, Spotify’s free, ad-supported tier.
The fact that this discrepancy exists tells me that this is probably one of those situations where some App Store reviewer is being stupidly stubborn and now that a stink has been raised outside the app review process it’ll be resolved. It has long been the policy (which is still anticompetitive, but less so) that you can offer a paid service in your app that doesn’t use IAP if and only if it’s sign-in-only and doesn’t mention/provide other ways to pay than IAP.
I side with Apple in this case.
As far as Netflix and Spotify, just choose a date before which some apps are grandfathered in and after which new apps have to play by the current rules.
In app purchase isn’t just good for Apple, it also protects user data and simplifies billing for them.
I’m not saying in app purchase should be the ONLY option, but it should always be an option in addition to however else developers allow their customers pay; It’s a reasonable position and compromise by Apple to leave the decision up to the consumer.
As far as Netflix and Spotify, just choose a date before which some apps are grandfathered in and after which new apps have to play by the current rules.
In app purchase isn’t just good for Apple, it also protects user data and simplifies billing for them.
I’m not saying in app purchase should be the ONLY option, but it should always be an option in addition to however else developers allow their customers pay; It’s a reasonable position and compromise by Apple to leave the decision up to the consumer.
It doesn’t matter what they charge. This is a Reader app. It can be a billion dollars and Apple shouldn’t get a cent.
I'm sure they will work things out. For those who don't know, the creator of this app has a lot of clout and swings his clout whenever he wants something done. (For context, this guy is rich enough to drive $1-2 million dollar race cars.)
Personally, I don't see much of a deal here as even if Apple makes an exception to them, I feel more for the thousands of small time app developers who get pushed around by Apple and don't have the Twitter followers to force Apple to do things.
Personally, I don't see much of a deal here as even if Apple makes an exception to them, I feel more for the thousands of small time app developers who get pushed around by Apple and don't have the Twitter followers to force Apple to do things.
If you can do more than read the email (i.e. send an email) its not a "reader" app
So I looked up Rule 3.1.1. and the exception for reader apps:
3.1.1 says "Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as ...<list of stuff here> external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase."
the exception to the rule is this:
3.1.3(a)“Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content ... (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video...), provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase...
Could it be that they violated 3.1.1 by stating "You can't sign up for an account in the app. We know that's a pain. Once you've created your account..."; they heavily imply go create an account on the web....its like a CTA with a wink and a nudge...
Also, could it be that Netflix is treated differently because it's considered a "Reader" app?
An email client is obviously not just a reader app because you can compose and send emails...You're also not just accessing "purchased content"; emails for reading aren't being purchased here -- you are purchasing a service which filters and sorts your emails
3.1.1 says "Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as ...<list of stuff here> external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase."
the exception to the rule is this:
3.1.3(a)“Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content ... (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video...), provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase...
Could it be that they violated 3.1.1 by stating "You can't sign up for an account in the app. We know that's a pain. Once you've created your account..."; they heavily imply go create an account on the web....its like a CTA with a wink and a nudge...
Also, could it be that Netflix is treated differently because it's considered a "Reader" app?
An email client is obviously not just a reader app because you can compose and send emails...You're also not just accessing "purchased content"; emails for reading aren't being purchased here -- you are purchasing a service which filters and sorts your emails
Last edited:
If I see someone speed by a state trooper and not get pulled over, I don't then go out the next day and speed by him and then complain when I get pulled over. The issue is not the terms, which are quite clear, but that Apple is supposedly not enforcing them consistently. That point I do very much see and agree is problematic, but that does NOT excuse any developer from purposely violating the terms themselves. Not sure why people can't see this important distinction.
It’s not really “unlocking” if you’re signing in to access features you’ve already paid for, though. This is how the policy has been interpreted pretty consistently through the years, both from “giants” and smaller companies, even startups.Well, then I guess you better start developing for another platform then. While Apple not being consistent in enforcing their rules is not right (assuming that's true and no pertinent details are being looked over), that doesn't excuse breaking the rules in the first place.
By the way, I looked up the rule, and I don't see how it can be any clearer:
App Review Guidelines - Apple Developer
The App Review Guidelines provide guidance and examples across a range of development topics, including user interface design, functionality, content, and the use of specific technologies. These guidelines are designed to help you prepare your apps for the approval process.developer.apple.com
Emphasis is mine. The part about "external links" is additional to the first sentence, not limiting its scope. In other words, you can't offer the in-app subscription, but then plead with people to support you better by clicking the link instead.
As a developer, what Apple offers (backend, tax compliance, support & storage) is well worth the 30%.
So you can’t compose and send any email? What kind of email program is that lol?