I’m going to step out on a limb here—none of those “Reader” apps are designed for content creation, only consumption.
Not sure I would use an email app that didn’t allow composing emails.
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.
Phil Schiller: Apple Will Not Change Decision on 'Hey' Email App, No App Store Rule Updates Imminent
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’m going to step out on a limb here—none of those “Reader” apps are designed for content creation, only consumption.
Not sure I would use an email app that didn’t allow composing emails.
Playlists are not content though; just a string of bookmarks. I have a watchlist and ratings in Netflix; but it is not new content.
Dropbox offers a free tier of service; and the iOS app is free and functions with that tier—much like Gmail.
“Hey” is not an email reader app—I can’t access any other email service other than Hey, which does not offer a free tier nor any functionality in the app without a paid subscription. There is no functionality apart from the 14-day trial or paid subscription.
I have downloaded “reader” apps that required a subscription to work (nursing/medical references specifically), and that is how they are available—they are “reader” apps.
The biggest argument I see against Apple is Fastmail, which is an email client for Fastmail’s service only—available for free on the App Store with no IAP and requires a paid subscription to work (or 30-day trial).
Not a developer, but I don’t think the IAP requirement is an issue for non-“reader” apps if there is a functioning free tier of service.
If my grandma goes to the Apple App Store and downloads a functioning app—no problem. If that app developer offers an increase in value for a web-based subscription (not-IAP); cool. However, if my grandma goes to the App Store and downloads an app without the ability to perform any functions, and there is no IAP; she is going to be frustrated with Apple, not Hey.
Everyone who is crying about Netflix, Spotify, Microsoft having exemptions - they don't, atleast where I'm based they still use IAP if you don't have subscription with your account, if you do (bought on web) - you are all set
Attachments
Those screen shots aren’t right or updated. At least not for Netflix and Spotify. Though Spotify has a free tier so you can sign up in-app but they don’t offer IAP anymore.
[automerge]1592748504[/automerge]
It seems pretty obvious Apple was having issues with certain big name companies like Amazon, Spotify and Netflix and so the gerrymandered a policy to accommodate those apps because the threat of Netflix or Spotify leaving their platform was something that would not be good for Apple. There is no good reason why a content consumption app can bypass IAP but a content creation app can‘t other than Apple competes in the former and not really in the latter. Bottom line is Hey thought they were submitting an app that conformed to the App Store rules and Apple agreed until all of a sudden they didn’t.
If Apple really wants to solve some of these developer headaches and PR nightmares they can allow developers to offer their own payment method in-app along side Apple’s IAP and they can allow developers to offer upgrade pricing. I’m not convinced they’ll do it without being forced since services revenue is now the main goal of the company and the biggest percentage of services revenue comes from IAP.
Last edited:
Open the app on AppStore, scroll down, you will see the IAP details for each app, if they don't offer it through UI anymore, maybe, that I can't test as I have active subscription.
I'm with Apple on this, as a developer, I can imagine the expenses involved with maintaining iOS and the EcoSystem, so Hey just wants to have app on iOS, make profit from subscription only service and use all the tools and platforms for 99$ a year for multiple apps that Apple needs to maintain and R&D for them. If they want free stuff - develop web based UI.
Mabye if you would read/listen, as already mentioned several times, there is no IAP, yes, it says it on the screenshots but Netflix/Spotify removed in app purchases. The App store descriptions are out of date.
It’s not that Apple hasn’t come for Spotify and Netflix - at one point they did offer IAP - it’s that Apple created a whole new category specifically so they wouldn’t leave. Which brings up a good question: who needs whom more? One could argue Apple needs them more than they need Apple. Hence the creation of a “reader” category of apps that can bypass IAP altogether. Yes the majority of apps on the App Store are freemium either free with ads or free with IAP. Again it’s Apple’s choice to allow freemium apps vs having a policy that every app must cost something, even if its just 99 cents. I would argue they’ve done this because they know there would be a lot fewer app downloads if every app cost money. And no doubt they are making a boatload off of IAP from games and people paying to remove ads. But would anyone outside of Apple execs (and wall street investors) consider that to be an insanely great product? Sure it might be a big revenue generator but I wouldn’t call it a great product. I‘ve got to believe services margins are pretty big. No way would Wall Street be pushing for more and more services revenues if the margins were thin.
[automerge]1592749652[/automerge]
I would bet Apple Music is not very profitable (hence why Spotify is really pushing into podcasts and creating a ad network). I would be curious to know what the margins are on Apple Arcade and Apple News+. Are they just loss leaders to sell more phones and grow the top line services revenue number?
Just installed spotify, to test, you are right, but you can use the app for free and in premium details (screenshot) they don't list pricing and don't have links to website. Only text that says - more details on official website. Meaning user has to close spotify, open safari, login, select plan/card details etc., return to spotify manually - all allowed for every app in AppStore. You can't direct them to other purchasing place, but you can give info and say "more details available elsewhere".
Attachments
By the way a lot of the language used in the Spotify app has been given a pass since Spotify filed their Antitrust complaint.
Apple was, at one point, blocking Spotify from mentioning promotions within the app.
Timeline - Time to Play Fair
www.timetoplayfair.com
Attachments
So Spotify was playing fast and loose with app store rules? Is Spotify the cause decelebre of the issues with app store? (It's not)By the way a lot of the language used in the Spotify app has been given a pass since Spotify filed their Antitrust complaint.
Apple was, at one point, blocking Spotify from mentioning promotions within the app.
Timeline - Time to Play Fair
I would also hypothesize that Apple Music is not as profitable due to all the licensing debacles in the music industry. I do think Apple has a slight advantage due to the iTunes store and whatever existing label/partner relationships that have there. Podcasts are something that are usually owned by the creators themselves and not the record company, so I can see why there has been movement there in the past few years. It's also much easier nowadays to run a podcast from home without renting a studio.
Based on the news and anecdotal experiences from people for Arcade and News+, I agree that it's a rhetoric to sell more phones and grow the services revenue number. When you look at the earnings report, the services category is very broad, and its "other services" sub-category is even more vague. I would guess that bucket just holds all the services (incl. News+/Arcade) because (currently?) it's too small to itemize and spin for investors.
Seems like the blog is negating the consistent user experience that Apple wants on iOS. But with so many users and Dev’s, there’s always an opinion to be had.
Why BaseCamp & Hey.com are Wrong About the Apple App Store
Apple recently rejected BaseCamp's update of their Hey.com app. This created a debate about AppStore rules and fairness. A problem PWAs solve.
How much does Safari/WebKit support progressive web apps? I’ve heard stories that Apple is not very supportive. I suppose because it would threaten native apps. But I don’t know enough about it and not everything you read is always accurate. 🙂Why BaseCamp & Hey.com are Wrong About the Apple App Store
Apple recently rejected BaseCamp's update of their Hey.com app. This created a debate about AppStore rules and fairness. A problem PWAs solve.love2dev.com
I don't know how well Apple supports it but if it gains popularity on other platforms, Apple might have a choice but to support PWA's.
I recall at one point Apple (circa 2007) was trying to be supportive of PWAs. Your link also has the author talking about what Safari/Webkit support (https://love2dev.com/pwa/ios/).
You can still write PWAs right now to get it out the door, but native is going to be what most will prefer.
That isn't the point of the article. Anecdotally, the "user experience" of the app store is pretty atrocious for discovering apps/games. If consistency is supposed to be bad, then winner winner chicken dinner. I have to usually look on Reddit, YouTube, and various websites to find things that may be of interest.
The author's point is the marketing that these devs do on the web and social media is what drives a lot of traffic to the app store.
I think there might be some cause to reflect over.
Pretty poorly. Probably the clearest example of Apple dragging their feet on PWA features is Safari website notifications, which have been supported on macOS since 2013 (with Mavericks) and still aren’t supported on iOS. (The macOS implementation is not standards-compliant, either.)
There’s no justification for it other than Apple views giving web apps on iOS comparable capabilities to native apps as an existential threat to the App Store.
Spotify and Netflix don't have it.. idk about Disney+ nor Amazon Prime. Also they are not allowed to show you how you can get a premium subscription. You need to figure it out on your own.
I'm not quite getting what Phil is saying. Let's say Hey writes a free app that can only READ emails. In order to be able to compose and send emails, you would have to signup on their website, paying a fee to them (therefore no cut for Apple). At that point, you would get the full functionality of the app that you have already downloaded. Would that be allowed?
You can disable S mode. Can you do that on iOS? No.
[automerge]1592803695[/automerge]
The point is that you don't have to use Windows App Store. We are not allowed to install programs that we want on iOS unless Apple puts it in their store.
Yep, I also believe you’d need to be able to create the email account within the app.
The options presented in the review email:
The second is disconnecting the app from the paid digital service. Essentially if the app isn't explicitly tied to just the service then the subscription for the service isn't required to be purchased via IAP. I would doubt they're going to go that way but it is presented as a way forward. Since it would be a generic mail client, in Apple's words consistent with it's marketing as an email client, then there would be no issues.
My read of the Twitter stream linked above is more megaphone negotiations with a company that really doesn't have much to lose by ignoring them. The original rejection email offered a pathway to figure out how to make the app compliant ("We are here as a resource as you explore these or other ideas to bring the Hey Email app within compliance of the App Store Review Guidelines and terms") which they chose to ignore and try to use Twitter to get their way. They're continuing to try to negotiate via Twitter even after it's clearly failed for them, they got a reaction but that reaction was doubling down on their rejection. I'm not sure I'd be as adversarially spoken as the tweet is stated but that's just me.
I also wonder given the statement from Fastmail that Apple had asked them to add IAP that if Hey have asked Apple for an exemption during the trial and then later complied if things might have gone differently. However the conversation seems to have been brought onto Twitter instead of being completed directly with the last tweet making clear they wouldn't implement IAP. The email from Apple doesn't seem to shutdown conversation but be a basis for further conversation, on the other hand the reactions online seem to be trying to force a conversation and losing.
- Offer IAP (easy mode!)
- Make the app function as an email app with support for standard IMAP and POP accounts.
The second is disconnecting the app from the paid digital service. Essentially if the app isn't explicitly tied to just the service then the subscription for the service isn't required to be purchased via IAP. I would doubt they're going to go that way but it is presented as a way forward. Since it would be a generic mail client, in Apple's words consistent with it's marketing as an email client, then there would be no issues.
My read of the Twitter stream linked above is more megaphone negotiations with a company that really doesn't have much to lose by ignoring them. The original rejection email offered a pathway to figure out how to make the app compliant ("We are here as a resource as you explore these or other ideas to bring the Hey Email app within compliance of the App Store Review Guidelines and terms") which they chose to ignore and try to use Twitter to get their way. They're continuing to try to negotiate via Twitter even after it's clearly failed for them, they got a reaction but that reaction was doubling down on their rejection. I'm not sure I'd be as adversarially spoken as the tweet is stated but that's just me.
I also wonder given the statement from Fastmail that Apple had asked them to add IAP that if Hey have asked Apple for an exemption during the trial and then later complied if things might have gone differently. However the conversation seems to have been brought onto Twitter instead of being completed directly with the last tweet making clear they wouldn't implement IAP. The email from Apple doesn't seem to shutdown conversation but be a basis for further conversation, on the other hand the reactions online seem to be trying to force a conversation and losing.