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

[usagora]

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.

Initially people were comparing it to Netflix and saying it was a double-standard, yet after reading the rules, it is clear that Netflix is indeed a reader app by Apple's definition, but Hey is clearly not. Only today have I seen mention of "Fastmail" so I would have to actually read up on that before commenting on that comparison. But my main point is that the rules are very clear, despite protestations to the contrary. Alleged arbitrary enforcement of rules is not the same as arbitrary rules. A developer should not base their decisions on what they think others are getting away with and instead abide by the actual rules. Pretty simple.

 

[Abazigal]

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.

I think that when you are dealing with millions of apps and developers (some of which clearly have their own agendas), the reality is that it is simply not possible to have a single set of rules to address every possible situation. Every day, someone comes up with some creative app which the rules do not apply to (which in turn necessitates the creation of new rules and / or the revision of existing ones), while other developers might use their knowledge of how the existing rules work in an attempt to skirt around them, which again requires Apple to step in.

Just look at the shortcuts app. It started as workflow, was initially allowed, then got banned, only to be reinstated later, and subsequently got acquired by Apple and integrated with iOS on a system level.

I also remember an app called Vidyo that used a "creative" application of airplay mirroring to let you record your own screen, which got approved into the App Store, only to be removed a few days later. This was a clear-cut violation of App Store policies, I have no idea how it got through in the first place, but the review team quickly caught on (maybe someone snitched?) and soon removed it.

In short, I wouldn't be surprised that the App Store rules are constantly in flux and under review. I would expect it really, given how the situation is fluid and ever-changing, and the people managing the App Store need to be flexible and agile enough to move with the times.

Initially people were comparing it to Netflix and saying it was a double-standard, yet after reading the rules, it is clear that Netflix is indeed a reader app by Apple's definition, but Hey is clearly not. Only today have I seen mention of "Fastmail" so I would have to actually read up on that before commenting on that comparison. But my main point is that the rules are very clear, despite protestations to the contrary. Alleged arbitrary enforcement of rules is not the same as arbitrary rules. A developer should not base their decisions on what they think others are getting away with and instead abide by the actual rules. Pretty simple.

Thanks for saying what I couldn't phrase in a much more elegant and cogent manner.

 

[Robsdc]

its already possible for Mac App Store. The issue is security and stability of a consumer appliance that apple wishes to offer like an iOS device versus a general purpose computer over which users take much more control but assumes much more responsibility for operating.

Could App developers offer 2 prices?
1) website price (example $100)
2) in app purchase price (example $135)

then there’s an in app option where the developer does not have to take the apple price increase (assuming customer is willing to do that)

or does apple’s app rules prevent something like that also?

 

[theotherphil]

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

I’ve already answered this pages ago. Fastmail have a free tier and you can sign into the app and get basic usage for free. It even mentions this on the Fastmail App Store page. Hey has NO basic functionality, has NO free tier (it’s by invite only), and no READ ONLY mode. Therefore it violates the terms of the developer agreement, which THEY AGREED TO prior to developing their app (otherwise known as a contract).

GMAIL and Outlook can be used for free and with no restrictions with ANY POP3/IMAP email provider. ”Hey” is providing a subscription to the APP, and not their email service.
[automerge]1592613901[/automerge]

No one's saying you can't have security and vetted apps. Having an alternative payment option isn't going to somehow fill the App Store with malware, nor does it force users to download and subscribe to apps that use that payment option if they don't feel comfortable with it. This idea that "if you don't like it you can go elsewhere" is exactly the same sentiment that Microsoft had in the 90s, and its the reason Apple is now coming under scrutiny for anti-competitive practices.

Apple have already stated that you can use your own payment methods outside of the App Store, as long as you provide IAP for those users that don’t want to go this route. That’s called choice. Hey is forcing users to their own payment method (reducing consumer choice). I for one appreciate having only one provider (Apple) having access to my credit card - this reduces my security exposure, and allows me to manage all my subscriptions in a single place. This is convenient and is one of the reasons that I choose Apple.

 

[Zaratustra]

But you can also compose/send emails with Hey. You can't create/edit/send/upload videos with Netflix.

without subscription you can do nothing. That is what Phil said, made a simple mail client and upgrade for their own service and it would be ok, but not they want to have money coming only to them, but using the Apple Platform to distribute and promote own app. Nice move. Who is really greedy right now is Hey guys.

 

[gleepskip]

I think it's absurd to have rules that apply to some app categories and not others. Apple should be agnostic about application content and usage. They provide the platform and toolset, the developers bring the apps, and there is a common set of rules and cost ladder for all applications.

 

[Zaratustra]

Yes, that is a correct answer. Make a choice for InApps and Website or provide free functionality in the app to use any pop3/imap mails with upgrading to more features and it will be ok, but they want to get rid of paying for huge platform that will distribute worldwide for free (I don't count $99 is a fair price for features they get) and then call Apple greed... somebody lie to much...

 

[theotherphil]

Asking for a single argument on how having a switch will create an attack vector is a childish retort?

A single switch is an attack vector for a Phishing attempt. Phone Call “Hey sir, I need you to install this software but in order to do so, you’ll need to flip this switch”.

Switch flipped, software then installed with admin privileges.

I’m not arguing the pros/ cons of installing outside of the app store, just answering your question on how it becomes an attack vector. This cannot happen on iOS and that is why it is fundamentally more secure.

 

[pasamio]

But my main point is that the rules are very clear, despite protestations to the contrary. Alleged arbitrary enforcement of rules is not the same as arbitrary rules. A developer should not base their decisions on what they think others are getting away with and instead abide by the actual rules. Pretty simple.

I agree, that's a better phrasing that the enforcement is arbitrary rather than the rules. Inconsistent enforcement is also demonstrated in this case as well with the initial approval and later removal.

 

[Naraxus]

Then they should also investigate any brick and mortar store for extorting a margin from the manufacturers of the goods they sell.

Nice false equivalency there but the grocery stores have a physical presence that they maintain whereas Apple does not. And don't start with that nonsense about how Apple hosts them on their servers. That certainly doesn't cost anywhere close to 15 or 30%

 

[smulji]

That certainly doesn't cost anywhere close to 15 or 30%

This coming from someone that's never built a an App Store that scales to a billion users and has no clue how much an infrastructure like that costs. Go try it yourself before you spout nonsense and act like an armchair CEO.

 

[boss.king]

This coming from someone that's never built a an App Store that scales to a billion users and has no clue how much an infrastructure like that costs. Go try it yourself before you spout nonsense and act like an armchair CEO.

Have you? Or are you just doing the same thing but from the opposite side of the fence?

 

[I7guy]

Have you? Or are you just doing the same thing but from the opposite side of the fence?

False equivalency. Unless one works for Apple posters on this board do not know apple’s infrastructure or cost. That was a reasonable comment given the wet finger in the air.

 

[boss.king]

False equivalency. Unless one works for Apple posters on this board do not know apple’s infrastructure or cost. That was a reasonable comment given the wet finger in the air.

I disagree. It's one person not knowing Apple's infrastructure costs calling out someone else for not knowing Apple's infrastructure costs. I think it's only fair for me, a third person who doesn't know Apple's infrastructure costs, to weigh in and point out the hypocrisy.

 

[smulji]

Have you? Or are you just doing the same thing but from the opposite side of the fence?

No, I haven't. Which is why I'm not going to pretend to know what the annual cost of running the App Store is. The person I replied to was adamant that it isn't close to 15% to 30%. No one on this or any forum knows that. What one can get an idea of, from looking at the financial statements, is the amount of capital expenditures makes every year. Most of that up till now has gone to datacenters for cloud services, retail stores, manufacturing equipment.

 

[pasamio]

It's been publicly reported that Apple's AWS spend is around $30 million per month and their own data centre spend for 2019 was targeted at $4.5 billion. Apparently Apple was spending double that on AWS. Apple have used Google and previously Microsoft as well but I haven't seen any published costing numbers for either. Suffice to say that's handling more than just the App Store which last I looked also leveraged Akamai powered hosting as well.

The App Store yearly is estimated around $50 billion or around $15 billion to Apple. Even if we assume 100% of their data centre spend and 100% of the AWS spend went just on the App Store then that is charitably $5 billion in 2019. Even if that was doubled, that is still $5 billion a year for the App Store.

Now that doesn't account for a true cost profile because we're not including development time, the cost of operations staff to run everything and the cost of the review team. On the flip side Apple also has iCloud, the music side infrastructure and the other apps too so it is unlikely that even 100% of that $5 billion would be App Store (let alone 200%). Let's do something crazy and assume of that last $5 billion a year for the App Store went straight to employees, Apple could hire 10,000 people at half a million a year for that amount of money and that would be around a third of Apple's R&D budget (~$16 billion last time I looked).

I think based on the numbers it is not an unreasonable statement that it doesn't cost 30% to run the App Store. I could see making a case that maybe even 15% would be safe. However as noted elsewhere the 30% cut is an industry standard and I don't see Apple changing that up.

 

[smulji]

However as noted elsewhere the 30% cut is an industry standard and I don't see Apple changing that up.

For subscription-based apps, Apple charges 30% the first year and 15% thereafter.

 

[Rogifan]

Phil Schiller said to Matthew Panzerino: “You download the app and it doesn’t work, that’s not what we want on the store.”

Heh, this website lists apps currently in the App Store that just bring you to a sign-in page with no way to create an account in-app (or creating an account takes you to a safari page) or information on how to sign up outside the app. And I’m sure this website isn’t even capturing every app on the store that is like this.

You Download the App and it Doesn't Work

Examples of capriciousness in App Store policymaking.

youdownloadtheappanditdoesntwork.com

This twitter thread takes Basecamp to task over some of their claims.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1274114834133647360

 

[Abazigal]

Seems fastmail has been asked to add IAP to their app as well.

Guess they had been flying under the radar until Hey decided to blow matters up and shine a spotlight on them.

So now everyone gets treated “fairly”. Happy now?

 

[aevan]

But we know thats whats Apple is all about these days.

Ah, this narrative again. These days Apple is what it has always been - just as any other global corporation their focus are, and always have been, the shareholders (which can lead to both great products like Apple makes and to bad decisions - that Apple also makes). With that said, I think you are right about the big and small players.

 

[Beavix]

But personally, as the owner of a business, this isn’t just about money. Money grabs the headlines, but there’s a far more elemental story here. It's about the absence of choice, and how Apple forcibly inserts themselves between your company and your customer.

Our CEO’s take on Apple’s App Store payment policies

A delightfully fresh take on email + calendar, from 37signals

hey.com

So who's teaching us lessons about how wrong the "absence of choice" is:

• A company that sells a proprietary email service, incompatible with the open email standards like IMAP or SMTP.
• Their email service is therefore incompatible with any 3rd party email clients, so users are locked in to hey.com apps.
• They refuse to add one more payment choice for the users, the in-app payment option.

So yeah, it's about money.

 

[I7guy]

I disagree. It's one person not knowing Apple's infrastructure costs calling out someone else for not knowing Apple's infrastructure costs. I think it's only fair for me, a third person who doesn't know Apple's infrastructure costs, to weigh in and point out the hypocrisy.

There is no hypocrisy, only a developer trying to get access to valuable iOS users and make money by skirting App Store rules.

 

[boss.king]

There is no hypocrisy, only a developer trying to get access to valuable iOS users and make money by skirting App Store rules.

It was a joke.

 

[usagora]

Nice false equivalency there but the grocery stores have a physical presence that they maintain whereas Apple does not. And don't start with that nonsense about how Apple hosts them on their servers. That certainly doesn't cost anywhere close to 15 or 30%

And do you think those "brick and mortar" stores are merely covering their costs or making some profit?

 

[Rogifan]

Seems fastmail has been asked to add IAP to their app as well.

Guess they had been flying under the radar until Hey decided to blow matters up and shine a spotlight on them.

So now everyone gets treated “fairly”. Happy now?

So Hey was right. How did Fastmail make it on the app store without IAP? Did someone in app review screw up or did Apple suddenly decide to change how they interpret/apply App Store rules?