Phil Schiller: Apple Will Not Change Decision on 'Hey' Email App, No App Store Rule Updates Imminent

[Abazigal]

If you’d read any of the other 20 times this question has come up in this thread, it’s because developers are left with no viable option except to sell on the App Store for iOS apps. You can’t distribute your apps on your website and web apps aren’t feasible as a substitute because Apple deliberately drags their feet on making PWAs a reality on iOS.

Probably the clearest example of this is Safari push notifications. They’ve been supported on macOS since 2013. They’ve never been supported on iOS. Wonder why.

It also feels to me that developers are never going to be satisfied with paying any amount to Apple that is basically greater than 0%.

$100 per year per developer doesn’t even begin to cover the cost of running the App Store and every developer has shown that given the option, they would rather not pay Apple a single cent if they could help it.

Say Apple releases their App Store profit numbers in court and it shows that they need at least 25% from developers to break even (hypothetically). Would this make developers feel better about paying Apple their 30% cut, or is it still “every man for himself”?

 

[Wilderness-1902]

When someone buys an i-devices, he/she own the device. There should be an option to run an app without Apple's approvement

 

[itsmilo]

This is gonna get interesting:

the chairman of the House antitrust subcommittee, told The Verge, “Because of the market power that Apple has, it is charging exorbitant rents — highway robbery, basically — bullying people to pay 30 percent or denying access to their market.” He went on to say, “It’s crushing small developers who simply can’t survive with those kinds of payments. If there were real competition in this marketplace, this wouldn’t happen.”


Many people have come forward to share their experiences, who are terrified of economic retaliation, who are afraid they can’t survive the economic retaliation that these large platforms can impose because of the power that they have, and we intend to pursue those allegations very seriously,” said Rep. Cicilline. “This is a real problem in the marketplace. This is a direct consequence of enormous market power, the fact that Apple is the gatekeeper for these developers, and we have heard many, many examples.”

“No one has a choice,” added Heinemeier Hansson. “Everyone is petrified... and then I understood. If you’re a publicly traded company, you cannot afford this. You cannot afford to file your earnings and say, ‘Oh, we just lost 50 percent of revenue last quarter because we had a spat with Apple.’ And if you’re a small developer, you can’t afford this literally because you will go broke — you will lose your house if they kick you out of the App Store.”

 

[cupcakes2000]

He can't and he won't. Most people side with big corporations against the small guy. Tech corporations have become too large and small businesses are being crushed.

Except, he can and he did.

 

[Abazigal]

When someone buys an i-devices, he/she own the device. There should be an option to run an app without Apple's approvement

You own the device but not the software running on it.

 

[Wilderness-1902]

You own the device but not the software running on it.

Yes, then Apple should unlock the device and let users run their OS

 

[Abazigal]

Yes, then Apple should unlock the device and let users run their OS

Nothing is stopping you from trying to flash your own OS onto the device. Nor is Apple obligated to make it easy for you to do so.

 

[blindoza]

Greate news! Will I be able to create an account in App Store Connect app and pay it via in-app purchases?

 

[bluecoast]

It also feels to me that developers are never going to be satisfied with paying any amount to Apple that is basically greater than 0%.

$100 per year per developer doesn’t even begin to cover the cost of running the App Store and every developer has shown that given the option, they would rather not pay Apple a single cent if they could help it.

Say Apple releases their App Store profit numbers in court and it shows that they need at least 25% from developers to break even (hypothetically). Would this make developers feel better about paying Apple their 30% cut, or is it still “every man for himself”?

You could argue that the App Store is a loss leader for the more important hardware business as it helps to build out an important ecosystem of apps.

Look how (unsuccessful) Windows S Mode is with access only to the Windows Store.

If we’re going to start saying that every business activity (outside of core operations such as HR etc) Apple does should be profitable, let’s demand that Apple charges for iOS updates (they never have - on the iPhone, at least) and MacOS updates (again).

The cost of developing new versions of these must run into hundreds of millions of $US a year and I think that Apple have the right to be fairly compensated (via their hardware users) for doing this.

 

[ksec]

They haven't explained why they let Gmail, Outlook and Fastmail to be free of IAP while they forced Hey to have it.

 

[ian87w]

When someone buys an i-devices, he/she own the device. There should be an option to run an app without Apple's approvement

There is an option. Web app. It's been there since iPhone OS 1.0, even before the app store was introduced.
[automerge]1592555633[/automerge]

They haven't explained why they let Gmail, Outlook and Fastmail to be free of IAP while they forced Hey to have it.

They did. GMail and Outlook offers free tier of their services. Phil gave that as an option to Hey.

As for Fastmail, I haven't used the app so maybe their language in the app is different.
[automerge]1592555794[/automerge]

Yes, then Apple should unlock the device and let users run their OS

Not sure why you would be buying an iPhone in the first place if that's your intention. So many Android devices out there.

 

[gleepskip]

Apple cannot allow Hey to get away with this, no matter how inconsistent or illogical the rationale. Otherwise, the flood gates will open and other companies will start doing the same thing.

Apple can set all the rules they want, but consumers, oversight organizations, and governments will have the final say.

I'm pretty tired of Apple lording over the App Store like a tyrant. It's theirs, they built it, but they're a ****ty landlord.

 

[vvrinne]

What Hey is trying to do is leverage Apple's platform, that they have invested literal billions in, for nothing. The points Phil is making are very reasonable and would be an easy out for Hey. Either offer a free version of the app, with the ability to upgrade to a pro-tier on their website. Or sell the app for a higher price on the Appstore, which would be convenient for some people and would let people buy the app without spreading their payment information around. This whole thing is a marketing campaign by Hey and they are definitely not getting any love from me.

 

[cupcakes2000]

They haven't explained why they let Gmail, Outlook and Fastmail to be free of IAP while they forced Hey to have it.

But yes they have.

This thread is hilarious!!

 

[Code cookies]

The developers and apps they make for iOS/iPadOS/macOS are part of the reason that makes buying an Apple product so compelling. Developers add value in ways other than direct revenue from app sales and in app purchases. It's sad to see apple becoming so developer hostile.

I understand the notion of Apple not wanting apps on the store that don't do anything until you login, however there are already countless examples of apps that do work this way. The reader rule seems to have been created so that the big services like Netflix can release apps on the store. iOS without Netflix, and Spotify etc would start to make people consider buying elsewhere, as mentioned earlier app developers provide value other than just in cash from app sales. But these smaller developers like Hey are being shaken down. They are already paying their yearly license to provide apps on the store, if that isnt enough to cover the costs for Apple then they would be within the rights to increase it. However, Apple shouldn't be forcing developers into handing over 30-15% of their profits to apple.

The developer is willing to sacrifice the user experience of not being able to sign up via the app. In app purchases should be compelling for developers, allowing them to improve the user experience of signing up and I think for some they are. But, if developers aren't seeing a 30-15% value on that then they should also be allowed to go their own way.

 

[lah]

Clearly the AppStore brings value to developers so for people to expect Apple to charge next to nothing for it, doesn’t make sense and is pie in the sky. I listened to the Vergecast interview with DHH and he does make some good points so let’s hope this will lead to some changes to make it a bit more developer friendly. Some of the restrictions are a bit onerous and need to be changed, but the AppStore runs on trust so at the same time I get why they’re strict.

 

[Eso]

That’s not a $0 Bill for Apple.

Then they can stop charing $0 for it. All of your arguments can be made for the infrastructure these companies need to distribute their content (be it emails, videos, music, etc.) - none of which Apple has anything to do with. Yet Apple demands 30% of subscriptions for that? The argument is defeated by its own reasoning.

The most obvious solution and that which should have been done LONG ago is to charge fees for hosting and distributing apps. If you want to use Apple's services for subscriptions, pay for that too. Otherwise, implement your own and pay those costs.

 

[gleepskip]

Then they can stop charing $0 for it. All of your arguments can be made for the infrastructure these companies need to distribute their content (be it emails, videos, music, etc.) - none of which Apple has anything to do with. Yet Apple demands 30% of subscriptions for that? The argument is defeated by its own reasoning.

The most obvious solution and that which should have been done LONG ago is to charge fees for hosting and distributing apps. If you want to use Apple's services for subscriptions, pay for that too. Otherwise, implement your own and pay those costs.

I think this is the right direction. If your app is free and there is no revenue stream for your app, Apple should host it for free. If your app is cash-positive (through ads or external sales) and you choose to opt out of Apple's payment system, there should be a reasonable hosting/distribution fee.

A flat 30% rate makes no sense when the overhead incurred by Apple is the same cost for every application, excepting bandwidth for huge applications.

 

[ian87w]

What Hey is trying to do is leverage Apple's platform, that they have invested literal billions in, for nothing. The points Phil is making are very reasonable and would be an easy out for Hey. Either offer a free version of the app, with the ability to upgrade to a pro-tier on their website. Or sell the app for a higher price on the Appstore, which would be convenient for some people and would let people buy the app without spreading their payment information around. This whole thing is a marketing campaign by Hey and they are definitely not getting any love from me.

Exactly. It's purely a PR stunt. DHH is living large. Even if Hey is completely banned, he would still be doing fine. OTOH, his buzzing can make life hard for others smaller devs. Apple realized there's a crack where apps are slipping through thanks to this very noisy guy. All the drama might be pushing Apple to tighten things further. Meanwhile, DHH got his minute of fame and some tweeter followers.

 

[Scott6666]

Well Phil (can’t innovate anymore my ass) Schiller, WHAT IS A READER APP? Define what a “reader” app is in English. I mean an email app seems like the perfect example of a reader app compared to Netflix since you can.. you know actually read emails!

I hope the EU slams them for this. A multi billion dollar corporation can certainly afford to clarify and enforce policies equally.



So why is Netflix, Spotify, etc on the App Store then? Explain that one Phil!

just be grateful they have a reader exception at all

 

[ksec]

But yes they have.

This thread is hilarious!!

OH no they haven't. Gmail and Outlook could be considered Free usage. Fastmail is exactly the same as Hey.

 

[I7guy]

Is Schiller a lawyer? If not why does his opinion matter on an issue that's obviously going to court?

But Apple has access to the best of lawyers, and Schiller doesn’t speak unless vetted with the corporate attorneys.
[automerge]1592568392[/automerge]

Well Phil (can’t innovate anymore my ass) Schiller, WHAT IS A READER APP? Define what a “reader” app is in English. I mean an email app seems like the perfect example of a reader app compared to Netflix since you can.. you know actually read emails!

I hope the EU slams them for this. A multi billion dollar corporation can certainly afford to clarify and enforce policies equally.



So why is Netflix, Spotify, etc on the App Store then? Explain that one Phil!

Think they are enforcing policies equally. Hey just doesn’t like it. And who reads emails without responding?

 

[cualexander]

Google has a 30% cut too. Why aren’t people decrying them as evil too?

What’s that? No one researched anything?Google Service Fees

 

[Pizzakoerier]

I personally think this is the fatal flaw of the walled garden / App Store approach. If I was on a Mac or Windows and the app was offered as a download I could just install it. On my iPhone, Apple gets to determine whether or not I can install it. I can certainly understand the developer not wanting to give Apple a 30% cut. I also realize that Apple has policies and the developers know what they are. However, I also have a 1200 dollar phone on which Apple isn‘t letting me install software that I want and it is not for any security reason that they are protecting me from. Why? Because, in my view, Apple would prefer Basecamp adds 30% to the price and tricks the user into overpaying for the product while Apple also prevents the developer from letting the user know this. I think it is BS.

The great thing is that you can also buy a 1200 dollar android phone and install whatever you want on it. Walled garden is, and always has been part of the iOS experience. It means that all the apps are in the App Store, guaranteed, and scrutinised. It’s one of the reasons I Prefer Apple over Android or Windows. This means choice.

 

[boss.king]

Google has a 30% cut too. Why aren’t people decrying them as evil too?

What’s that? No one researched anything?Google Service Fees

This has been covered a dozen times. Google lets developers distribute apps outside of the Play Store and use their own payment processing if they so choose.
For someone making snarky comments about research, maybe you should have done some yourself.