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

[usagora]

So it's such a major category that it's implied, just not major enough to be mentioned? Not exactly a bulletproof point.

Huh? It's not mentioned because it's not a reader app. Really don't understand what's so confusing about this. They're not going to say "videos," "music," and then go "Hmm, what ambiguous phrase could we use instead of just saying 'email'?...got it! "professional database"...even though those video and music apps use databases too, we'll separate out those categories by name, but not mention email specifically. Makes total sense!" LOL!

I'm sorry, but your reasoning here simply doesn't hold water.

By the most basic definition, a professional service is just one that you pay for. Since you pay for Hey, its servers would obviously fall under the classification of "a professional database".

Assuming that's really what you would have believed before this story hit the fan, then I'd definitely say you're in the minority. That's a really, really big stretch.

Do you honestly believe these guys invested millions in building this app and service over two years just to try make a point?

I have no idea what they spent or what their thought processes were. I do know that they made a big assumption about the rules and lost. Not Apple's fault. They could have asked. Do you seriously think if they had asked, "Does an email app qualify as a reader app?" that Apple would have replied, "We're not going to tell you. Just develop the app, submit it, and find out?" LOL!

All they have to do is fix the rule violation and then they're off to the races, assuming enough people think the app is worth it.

Oh, and sure my interpretation isn't the only one, as is obvious by the fact that we're talking, but I'm confident it's the only interpretation that anyone can come to unless they try to read between the lines. There are off the wall interpretations of a lot of things written in plain English. What else is new? Could they specifically state that email is not included in reader apps? Of course. Do they need to? No.

 

[I7guy]

Wait, so they were greedy by discontinuing options that made their users pay more?
....

No they were greedy by hiking the price. I thought that was clear in the context of the post.

 

[canhaz]

I felt the same about how they stood their ground against the FBI. I admire that. I admire people and companies that stand on principle vs. changing as the winds of popular opinion blow (or at least the opinion that is made to appear popular by media coverage).

Agree standing your ground can be an admirable quality, however it can also be a negative, coming off as stubborn and tonedef. Like when Digg refused to rollback their much hated redesign. They never recovered. Oops.

Or perhaps a more timely issue. Should we applaud Apple for being "principled" in forcing broken keyboards on users for years? But but Tim Cook is man ahead of his times, a visionary leader. Just think about all the courage that took. Oh no wait, he's a supply chain manager that likes to juice revenue and nickle and dime customers at every opportunity.

 

[I7guy]

Agree standing your ground can be an admirable quality, however it can also be a negative, coming off as stubborn and tonedef. Like when Digg refused to rollback their much hated redesign. They never recovered. Oops.

I think that is true for some apple customers. But most people don't take up the level of hubris found here on MR.

Or perhaps a more timely issue. Should we applaud Apple for being "principled" in forcing broken keyboards on users for years? But but Tim Cook is man ahead of his times, a visionary leader. Just think about all the courage that took. Oh no wait, he's a supply chain manager that likes to juice revenue and nickle and dime customers at every opportunity.

The did stand up to the FBI. So there is history in putting their money where their corporate mouths are.

 

[usagora]

Agree standing your ground can be an admirable quality, however it can also be a negative, coming off as stubborn and tonedef. Like when Digg refused to rollback their much hated redesign. They never recovered. Oops.

Or perhaps a more timely issue. Should we applaud Apple for being "principled" in forcing broken keyboards on users for years? But but Tim Cook is man ahead of his times, a visionary leader. Just think about all the courage that took. Oh no wait, he's a supply chain manager that likes to juice revenue and nickle and dime customers at every opportunity.

Sure, they're not perfect. But that's what happens when you take risks. You sometimes fail. But at least they're taking risks. I'm just not nearly as cynical as you are, I suppose.

 

[boss.king]

Huh? It's not mentioned because it's not a reader app. Really don't understand what's so confusing about this.

I assumed you could follow a conversation across a couple of posts, my mistake. I meant that they should mention things that are specifically not reader apps, eg: "EMAIL SERVICES DO NOT FALL UNDER THE CLASSIFICATION OF READER APPS, EVEN THOUGH THEY PROVIDE ACCESS TO PROFESSIONAL DATABASES."

Assuming that's really what you would have believed before this story hit the fan, then I'd definitely say you're in the minority. That's a really, really big stretch.

It's really not a stretch at all, but by all means explain to me what a professional service is. Hell, give some examples of what is and isn't a professional service.

I have no idea what they spent or what their thought processes were. I do know that they made a big assumption about the rules and lost. Not Apple's fault. They could have asked. Do you seriously think if they had asked, "Does an email app qualify as a reader app?" that Apple would have replied, "We're not going to tell you. Just develop the app, submit it, and find out?" LOL!

Based on stories from other developers, that sounds like exactly what Apple would do. I can't find the exact quote but I believe your "We're not going to tell you. Just develop the app, submit it, and find out?" is almost word-for-word what an Apple exec at WWDC said in regards to a question about an app in the early life of the app store, and it seems to largely be the way they operate today. Maybe someone can correct me.

All they have to do is fix the rule violation and then they're off to the races, assuming enough people think the app is worth it.

Oh, and sure my interpretation isn't the only one, as is obvious by the fact that we're talking, but I'm confident it's the only interpretation that anyone can come to unless they try to read between the lines. There are off the wall interpretations of a lot of things written in plain English. What else is new? Could they specifically state that email is not included in reader apps? Of course. Do they need to? No.

Plain English can still be vague. Just because the words are simple doesn't mean the intent is clear and precise.

 

[canhaz]

Sure, they're not perfect. But that's what happens when you take risks. You sometimes fail. But at least they're taking risks. I'm just not nearly as cynical as you are, I suppose.

Call me crazy but isn't responding with empty platitudes or personal attacks, usually an indicator the commentor has lost the argument?

 

[usagora]

Call me crazy but isn't responding with empty platitudes or personal attacks, usually an indicator the commentor has lost the argument?

I don't consider calling someone "cynical" a personal attack, if that's what you're trying to say. And I don't think the idea of taking risks is an empty platitude. It's just true. Nothing new under the sun (oops, I guess you'll label that an empty platitude too...oh well! Guess I can't win with some people).

 

[chrisbru]

You can do that with a Gmail account, too, which you can pay to have.

What you can’t do is pay for your Gmail account through the Gmail app (I just double checked - it has no IAP.)

I think the difference is there is no free version of Hey, whereas Gmail you can sign up for a free account in the app.

Not saying I agree with the distinction, but it's there.

 

[canhaz]

I don't consider calling someone "cynical" a personal attack, if that's what you're trying to say

Actually, cynical is more often considered a negative word. And yes, making negative comments on other users character you dont agree with, is pretty much an attack. Sorry to say.

If you still really wanted to make judgements on other people's character, it's not hard to use a more neutral term, like "skeptical", which attributes more reasonableness to the subject.

 

[usagora]

I assumed you could follow a conversation across a couple of posts, my mistake. I meant...

That's rich. Yes, your mistake for not writing clearly.

I meant that they should mention things that are specifically not reader apps, eg: "EMAIL SERVICES DO NOT FALL UNDER THE CLASSIFICATION OF READER APPS, EVEN THOUGH THEY PROVIDE ACCESS TO PROFESSIONAL DATABASES."

Netflix and Spotify (video and music) have paid services and also use databases. So why are they mentioned if your definition of "professional databases" is true? Shouldn't professional databases" cover them all? This is where deduction should reveal to you that your definition of "professional databases" is not accurate.

Anyway, it's enough. We're just going in circles now.

 

[boss.king]

That's rich. Yes, your mistake for not writing clearly.

Wait, are you saying that there was some ambiguity in plain English? 😱

 

[usagora]

Actually, cynical is more often considered a negative word. And yes, making negative comments on peoples character you dont agree with, is pretty much an attack. Sorry to say.

If you wanted to still make characterizations, you could have used a more neutral term, like "skeptical" which attributes more reasonableness to the subject.

I think "cynical" is accurate about your stance on the topic at hand. I'm sorry you didn't approve of my word choice. Someone else may not have liked "skeptical." Oh well.

 

[jonblatho]

No they were greedy by hiking the price. I thought that was clear in the context of the post.

30% isn’t a trivial charge. That’s about the margin Apple makes on its hardware.

So, if a developer is already selling their service on their own at $9.99/mo/user and their average cost of providing the service is $6.50/mo/user, not counting credit card processing fees, which they’d have handled by Apple by moving to IAP. That’s a margin of about 25%, well south of Apple’s ~65% margin for services, and well north of where a lot of startups start out (often believing, sometimes erroneously, that their costs per user will decrease substantially as compute costs decline and the service scales).

Apple takes 30% of that $9.99/mo, no matter what, for the first year each user is subscribed. That means the developer is actually losing money — not a ton, but still absolutely losing money — with a margin of −5%. They’re left with no choice but to either eat that loss and hope they can keep users around for a year to gain the right to make a measly 10% margin on IAP, or they can raise the IAP price.

Pricing decisions are seldom arbitrary; you have to balance what the market will bear, your competition, and your costs. The first two provide your ceiling; the last your floor. Perhaps this developer chose the $9.99 price because they’re competing with a more established service at the same price. If they raise their price, they will inevitably lose customers to that competing service. If they’re competing with Apple, Apple gets 100% of the $9.99 while the developer is left with 70–85% at most (a major antitrust concern for services like Spotify and Netflix, with both of which Apple is directly competing).

 

[I7guy]

30% isn’t a trivial charge. That’s about the margin Apple makes on its hardware.

And my point was there have been posts in the past where MR posters have voiced opinions that apple should "suck it up" and lower their prices. The same type of sentiment should apply to Netflix.

So, if a developer is already selling their service on their own at $9.99/mo/user and their average cost of providing the service is $6.50/mo/user, not counting credit card processing fees, which they’d have handled by Apple by moving to IAP. That’s a margin of about 25%, well south of Apple’s ~65% margin for services, and well north of where a lot of startups start out (often believing, sometimes erroneously, that their costs per user will decrease substantially as compute costs decline and the service scales).

Apple takes 30% of that $9.99/mo, no matter what, for the first year each user is subscribed. That means the developer is actually losing money — not a ton, but still absolutely losing money — with a margin of −5%. They’re left with no choice but to either eat that loss and hope they can keep users around for a year to gain the right to make a measly 10% margin on IAP, or they can raise the IAP price.

Pricing decisions are seldom arbitrary; you have to balance what the market will bear, your competition, and your costs. The first two provide your ceiling; the last your floor. Perhaps this developer chose the $9.99 price because they’re competing with a more established service at the same price. If they raise their price, they will inevitably lose customers to that competing service. If they’re competing with Apple, Apple gets 100% of the $9.99 while the developer is left with 70–85% at most (a major antitrust concern for services like Spotify and Netflix, with both of which Apple is directly competing).

With Apple spending $1B or more in legal fees, I can only imagine they have the information they need on the anti-trust aspects of the competition. But since neither Netflix or Spotify has IAP, the point is moot, imo.

 

[boss.king]

With Apple spending $1B or more in legal fees, I can only imagine they have the information they need on the anti-trust aspects of the competition.

I bet Microsoft felt the same way before their trial too.

 

[Wildkraut]

Apple Mafia... first they disallowed the usage of third party purchase API in Apps, then forces In-App with excuse of user experience. Greedy B.......!

 

[Rogifan]

According to John Gruber there are A LOT of developers small and big who are unhappy but don’t speak out because of fear and are on the App Store because they have to be not because they want to be (right now). That’s not a good look for Apple.

 

[smulji]

According to John Gruber there are A LOT of developers small and big who are unhappy but don’t speak out because of fear and are on the App Store because they have to be not because they want to be (right now). That’s not a good look for Apple.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1273966663034122242

What does this tweet have to do with anything?

 

[I7guy]

I bet Microsoft felt the same way before their trial too.

Hopefully Apple has learned a few things since then.

 

[pasamio]

Apple shouldn’t get to decide Hey’s business model for them.

Yet Hey should be able to decide Apple's business model? Apple developed the hardware, the operating systems (both iOS and Mac) and the developer tooling (Xcode) from which they've decided the terms of service for using that hardware and software. They've then invested in marketing and retail options to make that available to a customer market that Hey obviously finds valuable. That is the basis upon which Apple are deciding the valid models that third parties can interact with their products.

Hey on the other hand isn't providing any value directly to Apple though it is providing value to mutual customers. Should Hey get the right to reject Apple's business model because they don't like it?

I do feel sympathy for them because they do appear to have tried to do the right thing and Apple appear to be in the middle of yet another arbitrary rule redefinition that they're caught up in. They don't seem to be the first but they are the ones making noise.

That's what Steve Jobs would've said, just make a web app, then you can do whatever you want.

Steve already said make a web app, that was the original iPhone. They even updated Dashcode so that you could make look a like iPhone apps in it as well. That world has since long fallen away though.

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.

I think the counter point is generally that developers can build and deploy apps on other platforms and aren't forced to deploy into this iOS platform. Developers have viable options to sell on these other platforms, they just don't get a choice on iOS. As has been noted elsewhere that Apple aren't the only ones who do this, the game consoles all show this behaviour, Amazon locks down their devices and even Microsoft tried it at various points. The presented option is that developers do have a choice in the platforms they wish to develop for though as I noted earlier in the post, I really wish Apple would be more consistent with their rule application. I do feel that they should remove the explicit anti-competitive rules because they are by definition anti-competitive and Apple's own internal moves put developers into violation of them through no fault of their own (or perhaps by their own popularity). I do wish they'd be consistent that if they're going to require some apps to have IAP that they force all apps and they make the distinction of digital only much more explicit (comments elsewhere asking about why Lufthansa can get a free pass, plane rides are far from digital).

I think many of our collective challenges is that Apple used to make devices that were great for us and increasingly they've stopped doing it. It's sad but the only way to get Apple to change is to lay on the PR offensive or to vote with our wallets. The challenge with the PR approach is that after a while, Apple will do it again which leaves realistically enough of a hit to their bottom line to force change.

Can you then explain to me how an email service doesn't fall under "accessing a professional database"? Because from my understanding that's exactly how an email service works, which going by Apple's written rules of what classifies as a reader app would allow Hey to operate as intended from launch just like Netflix.

A professional database I would say is something like the LexisNexis law databases and other similar sorts of online databases used by folk to research areas. Research areas also have a large number of databases that one subscribes to, generally paid for through your institution rather than personally (e.g. a university or a company). These databases are by definition read only for the most part (maybe bookmarking or snippet features). This fits into the broader "reader" examples listed. Professional in this use I think refers to a more traditional use of the word applied to the older white collar jobs like lawyers or tax professionals. Database is also a much more archaic usage than the more modern developer centric usage (everything is a database now!).

 

[boss.king]

A professional database I would say is something like the LexisNexis law databases and other similar sorts of online databases used by folk to research areas. Research areas also have a large number of databases that one subscribes to, generally paid for through your institution rather than personally (e.g. a university or a company). These databases are by definition read only for the most part (maybe bookmarking or snippet features). This fits into the broader "reader" examples listed. Professional in this use I think refers to a more traditional use of the word applied to the older white collar jobs like lawyers or tax professionals. Database is also a much more archaic usage than the more modern developer centric usage (everything is a database now!).

I suspect you're right in that being what they meant, but that's definitely the sort of thing that deserves a proper explanation.

 

[usagora]

A professional database I would say is something like the LexisNexis law databases and other similar sorts of online databases used by folk to research areas. Research areas also have a large number of databases that one subscribes to, generally paid for through your institution rather than personally (e.g. a university or a company). These databases are by definition read only for the most part (maybe bookmarking or snippet features). This fits into the broader "reader" examples listed. Professional in this use I think refers to a more traditional use of the word applied to the older white collar jobs like lawyers or tax professionals. Database is also a much more archaic usage than the more modern developer centric usage (everything is a database now!).

Yep. Hard to believe a developer would read that and think, "Oh, they must mean email!" lol! But they also write "do not eat" on silica gel packets, so what's obvious to the vast majority of people isn't apparently obvious to every single person (and of course the only reason they have to specify the obvious in that case is for liability reasons, which don't apply here).

I do feel sympathy for them because they do appear to have tried to do the right thing and Apple appear to be in the middle of yet another arbitrary rule redefinition that they're caught up in. They don't seem to be the first but they are the ones making noise.

I don't see how you can call it arbitrary or redefinition. As Phil Schiller stated, email apps have never been considered reader apps. The "right thing" would to comply with the App Store's rules after they've been clearly notified, yet last I read, the developer was refusing to do so in quite a childish outburst.

 

[gleepskip]

I don't see how you can call it arbitrary or redefinition. As Phil Schiller stated, email apps have never been considered reader apps. The "right thing" would to comply with the App Store's rules after they've been clearly notified, yet last I read, the developer was refusing to do so in quite a childish outburst.

17 pages in and you're still not convinced that Apple run the store arbitrarily and unfairly? Much praise for these developers that will gamble millions on Apple's teenage fickleness whether to accept their app.

 

[pasamio]

I don't see how you can call it arbitrary or redefinition. As Phil Schiller stated, email apps have never been considered reader apps. The "right thing" would to comply with the App Store's rules after they've been clearly notified, yet last I read, the developer was refusing to do so in quite a childish outburst.

They were mistakenly approved so at least someone in Apple also thought what they were doing was acceptable. Given many of the other responses that Apple have started to push others to add IAP (Fastmail being an example here on both sides), it seems from my perspective a redefinition. Twitch out of nowhere started adding in support for Apple payment methods which makes me wonder if Apple have been doing a lot of pushing behind the scenes to start to require IAP.

I agree the developer is overblowing it and it seems like Apple tried to give them a few paths forward that they didn't like. By making it public they attempted to force Apple's hand and forced it they have with Apple doubling down on the rejection.