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

[aakshey]

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.

That‘s your opinion. But Apple is flouting their own by laws. This guy played it by the book.
[automerge]1592344569[/automerge]

As a developer, what Apple offers (backend, tax compliance, support & storage) is well worth the 30%.

That is your opinion. Apple itself doesn’t feel they deserve 30% for Reader apps. That’s why NetFlix doesn’t pay 30%. But Microsoft does for Office.

 

[Rogifan]

If you can do more than read the email (i.e. send an email) its not a "reader" app

What if an app offers the share sheet? Is that additional functionality?

 

[DummyFool]

Good job Apple...give the EU some more evidence of anti-competitive behavior the day that the investigation is launched

I am happy because i do hope legislators will rule hard against Apple. I could not care less if Apple takes a cut or not, it's not my money anyway but there are apps i would like to be able to get on my iPad that i can't, simply not available on the Apps store, never will be. Having a second store would transform my iPad from fun gadget to a real laptop replacement for me.

 

[aakshey]

If you can do more than read the email (i.e. send an email) its not a "reader" app

You have no know how about intellectual law/patents/IT. Reader is just a word meant to signify apps where you’re just using the app as an existing subscriber (free or paid) to a third party service.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Isn't the real issue here that some tech entrepreneur is whining about Apple taking a slice of an email service they want to charge $100 a year for? Talk about out-of-touch with reality.

Also, hasn't this guy got some history for 'staged' rants in order to increase publicity and sales?

This is nothing more than a publicity stunt by an ass.

 

[ComRadMac]

Apple isn't LETTING you use their store, they're FORCING you to use it

Well, no... You are NOT being forced to release an app for iOS. You are CHOOSING to distribute your app on the iphone.

I totally understand the frustration with these charges, while also understanding that without iPhone, you don't have an app to charge for in the first place. Without iOS, you have no app, and therefore no revenues, and therefore nothing to pay Apple out of.

I get that people would rather distribute their apps for free. But I also get it that doesn't really work that way. Keeping 100% of nothing vs. 70% of something seems pretty straightforward.

30% seems like too much. 15% actually sounds about right.

 

[WingsAndBeer]

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

EDIT: You all can "disagree" all you want, but those are the facts. Sorry 🤷‍♂️ Time to start thinking with reason, not emotion.

How many times are you going to edit your post because someone gives you a thumbs down? Hilarious.

 

[aakshey]

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 are being purchased here -- a service which filters your emails is the thing you are purchasing

Nope. It’s the exact same case as NetFlix. If NetFlix allowed you to add comments and type reviews, would it no longer be a Reader app?

 

[Rigby]

If you can do more than read the email (i.e. send an email) its not a "reader" app

Apple's rules also allow VoIP services. I'm pretty sure that's not restricted to services that allow you to listen to the person on the other end of a call but not speak.

Anyway, the rule also allows "approved services", which means Apple have created a loophole for themselves that allows them to make arbitrary decisions case by case.

 

[farewelwilliams]

Well that would be a good argument if Apple forced everyone to comply with the rules. But just like Amazon Video and Netflix can get out of their rules… then, it starts to show who’s got integrity

Amazon Video and Netflix are categorized as "reader" apps which are exempt.

 

[aakshey]

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.

Good luck explaining that to the EU. Apple will be instbanned from EU for life.

 

[PickUrPoison]

You have no know how about intellectual law/patents/IT. Reader is just a word meant to signify apps where you’re just using the app as an existing subscriber (free or paid) to a third party service.

What does intellectual law/patents/IT have to do with you making up your own definition of “reader apps”?

 

[aakshey]

Well, no... You are NOT being forced to release an app for iOS. You are CHOOSING to distribute your app on the iphone.

I totally understand the frustration with these charges, while also understanding that without iPhone, you don't have an app to charge for in the first place. Without iOS, you have no app, and therefore no revenues, and therefore nothing to pay Apple out of.

I get that people would rather distribute their apps for free. But I also get it that doesn't really work that way. Keeping 100% of nothing vs. 70% of something seems pretty straightforward.

30% seems like too much. 15% actually sounds about right.

In 5 years the EU will make this law a thing of the past. Companies like Apple and Amazon may be worth much much less 10 years from now.

 

[farewelwilliams]

I am happy because i do hope legislators will rule hard against Apple. I could not care less if Apple takes a cut or not, it's not my money anyway

the money Apple makes gets reinvested into developers which ultimately helps build better apps for you. you should care if EU rules hard.

"but Apple makes billions" yeah ok, but they also have to answer to shareholders which means shifting money around to make the revenue decline look less damaging. maybe increase prices on iPhone for fatter margins, increase in iCloud storage prices, surely increases in Apple Music prices, etc...

 

[I7guy]

In 5 years the EU will make this law a thing of the past. Companies like Apple and Amazon may be worth much much less 10 years from now.

Probably not.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Nope. It’s the exact same case as NetFlix. If NetFlix allowed you to add comments and type reviews, would it no longer be a Reader app?

Why, would it no longer be a reader app that allows a user to access previously purchased content?

 

[dalekarnegie]

Nope. It’s the exact same case as NetFlix. If NetFlix allowed you to add comments and type reviews, would it no longer be a Reader app?

Netflix is a service that allows you to access a library of licensed video content.

Hey is a service that filters/sorts/and facilitates responding to incoming messages from arbitrary sources.

I personally think they are different.

 

[aakshey]

What does intellectual law/patents/IT have to do with you making up your own definition of “reader apps”?

That is exactly what common sense is about. And how the judge will use common sense to interpret it like an intellectual. Taking into account all apps for which Apple never made any noise.

 

[omihek]

The problem with "Apple letting you use their store", is Apple using this as a point to sell their devices. Since Apple sells it as a more secure system then other Apps stores on other platforms. Now if Apple let Devs sell/install outside the App Store then they would have an argument to charging a fee for using their store. Apple fees may have made sense in the beginning but not now.

Why would they not make sense now?

 

[JGIGS]

”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

Do you honestly think Apple deserves 15-30% of a companies subscriptions fees? I like Apple products and all but that's waayyyyy unfair. How much overhead does Apple even have with making an app available on the app store? Companies deserve to be upset with this structure. 2% - 5% seems fair 10% tops.

 

[aakshey]

Why, would it no longer be a reader app that allows a user to access previously purchased content?

Because if NetFlix were to add a Comments/Reviews functionality, Apple would still classify it as a Reader app. This is just plain common sense for people who get it. The judge won’t explain his decision. He will just kill Apple.

 

[boss.king]

This is nothing more than a publicity stunt by an ass.

What makes him an ass? From my (possibly incorrect but not according to anything I can find) understanding of the App Store rules, this is completely valid complaint with president precedent set by other companies. Either way, it's not like Apple's never made questionable calls on the App Store, and their decisions should be able to stand up to some mild scrutiny.

 

[aakshey]

Probably not.

100%. Over the next 5-10 years, things will change. iOS will probably become more like Mac in terms of sideloading. Amazon will probably be banned from white label totally. Margins will shrink. These companies won’t be as big as they are now.

 

[Scott Frost]

As a developer I should make a similar app and charge $9.99 one time fee and undercut the competition! Capitalism at it's finest. I'd be happy with $7 x 100,000 new customers that I did not have yesterday. It's the cost of doing business. If I make the next POP song and want it on Spotify OR iTunes Store they will take a cut of every sale, but now my song has the potential to reach millions of users instead of my 200 Facebook friends. I sell for 0.99 and get 0.69.... the math doesn't lie, you pay for exposure. If I sell 10 apps and make $100 and have to pay Apple $30, meh no biggie, but as that number grows and gets to $1,000,000 and now I have to pay $300,000 -- I get mad and blame apple for taking all my money without realizing that if it weren't for Apple I'd have $0.

 

[ksec]

Hey is developed by a small business and is relatively unknown. It is more difficult to boss around bigger players like Netflix or Spotify.

Hey is developed by the creator of Ruby Rails. The Web Programming community, not just Rails but also from Python and PHP have been eager to sigh up for Hey. This is getting escalated faster than any other small business, or *any* business.