It doesn’t apply to any app, big or small, that doesn’t allow in app purchases.
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
It doesn’t apply to any app, big or small, that doesn’t allow in app purchases.
It's not an app, it's apparently a whole new paradigm for dealing with emails and also includes the email service.
Gmail isn't free, it's paid for through advertising.
You think Apple are going to pull out of the third biggest market in the world to cling on to their anticompetitive practices?
Nope.
They've already started the slow climb down. Siri with Spotify was the start.
They were trying to worm their way out of $14 billion in tax in Ireland iirc
It’s up to Apple what they want to add as a category to the reader exception. For example, they except VoIP services.
I agree that Apple should be consistent however. Unless it falls into an exception category, it shouldn’t be classified as a reader app.
Either Apple is excepting apps like BaseCamp or it’s not. Sounds like an intern gone rogue may have approved basecamp by mistake. How does Apple treat basecamp’s competitors?
Apple doesn’t charge any company for any app, as long as there are no in app purchases or links directly for in app purchases. In the case of eCommerce, there are direct links, but Apple still doesn’t charge a fee. This seems to be an idiotic intern who will get his ass fired.
Read my above reply. Apple doesn’t charge for any app that doesn’t have in app purchases. Period. Basecamp isn’t the exception. It’s the norm. Hey being rejected is an intern gone rogue.
Thankfully, we don’t even need to ask the question at the end because we can look directly at how Apple treats Hey’s competitors:
Also, Basecamp isn’t exactly a small service that no one’s heard of — it’s been around for over 20 years and has millions of users. If this was an “intern gone rogue,” they’ve been going rogue for years.
As many times as I'd like. I find it hilarious when people disagree with obvious facts and then provide no rebuttal. Feel free to provide that rebuttal anytime rather than worrying about tracking the edit times on my post.
If you think 30% is a good deal, how about the package industry switch the rate to 30% of the value inside for a sending a packet.
Apparently you didn't read what I wrote, as the whole point was drawing the distinction between what you're talking about and developers purposely breaking the rules and then whining about being held accountable for it.
App violates section 3.1.1, and does not fall into the exceptions listed in 3.1.3(a).
You really need to work on this apparent need of yours to use hyperbole.
It's quite embarrassing...
I don't care about how much money Apple takes, i care about the fact they have the only store and they decide to not put an app on it because it might do competition to one of their app or it might with an app that they might want to write eventually or for any other reasons for that matter.
And this the EU can fix. Even if sideloading were possible, almost nobody would do it. FYI.
Huh? The whole point is that they're telling people to sign up for the service outside the app. They haven't paid for anything yet if they're reading that message.
Or any other independent developer. If you are one, I think it's wise to support DHH in this instance... I wonder how this issue will blow up on future versions of macos.
yeah when your argument boils down to analogies pulled out of the same hole that apple pulled the app store terms... you don't have much of an argument.
The terms are not at all clear, they are not enforced with any consistency, and one can come up with hundred of actual examples that show these inconsistencies within the App store, and not about state troopers and speeding (which is governed by a clear law, and court-backed decisions btw, so yeah your argument fails there too). Should my bank also offer the option to sign up for my credit card through their app and then take a cut out of the yearly fee? Should uber and lyft pay a 30% to Apple for every ride? What do you think?
The bottom line is that Apple is juicing the app store, and engaging in very predatory and illegal tactics while doing so, and someone should step in because clearly they don't care about the developers (anymore) or their users.
You’ve got no idea what you’re talking about. Physical goods are allowed to be sold without any revenue sharing with Apple.
Personally, I’d rather trust Apple with Security of my credit card than a startup company. They already have my credit card details, so why give an extra opportunity to a company with no track record.
I know. And that’s exactly the issue. Apple can’t decide things on a whim. As per Anti Trust laws.
[automerge]1592348138[/automerge]
Then don’t. I’m sure you’re not the target audience for a $99/year email service with your attitude.
Except the whole thing where, like, they’re not. Are you even paying attention to any of this? That’s long been against the rules; basically every developer knows where the line in the sand is on that. That would certainly include this guy, who is CTO of Basecamp, which does this exact sign-in-only thing with their app.