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

[Freida]

No I don't. I just don't take that as valid. In fact, its crappy excuse.

Also, sad to see that you are on Apple's side (or at least imply that)

Apparently, you have RCDD. Phil Schiller clearly stated why Netflix is an exception.

[automerge]1592526078[/automerge]
Exactly, thats what I was implying. Its incredible to see, that there are still bloody people that defend Apple here.
Incredible!

The difference is quite simple. If Netflix and Spotify pull out their apps and are only available in competing platforms, then the huge installed base of those platforms might consider migrating to other options where they can use their platforms. If this email reader does so, then no one will flock to Android to get it. It is just Apple bullying the little guy that has no other recourse, while bending to the big guys that could actually hurt their business. Is not about being "reader" app.

 

[filman408]

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!

A “reader” app only consumes, it doesn’t generate or create.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Yes. Let's pretend only Apple made the iToys the success they are.

This comment exhibits very little understanding about the hell devs go through to bring anything through the Crap Store. And the hell they face year-over-year to keep it updated when Apple always breaks everything.

Uninstall all useful 3rd party software from your iToy. Under King Schiller's policies, the future of the Crap Store is:

• Worthless shovelware and bad Electron ports (little value, easy to build).
• Corporate spyware/adware from the Googles and Facebooks who can stomach the dev costs / difficulty to get your data.

Developers aren’t victims no matter how hard you try and spin the top.

You are retorting against arguments I did not make in my previous post.

Moving the goal posts to fit your victimhood narrative does not change the fact that...

Basecamp engaged Apple without duress.

Basecamp created a developer account agreeing to all the terms therein.

Apple has the right to refuse service to a developer who fails to meet the conditions agreed to upon creation of the account, as well as conditions of app approval and rejection.

Basecamp agreed to terms that they have now shown they don’t want to abide by, while at the same time seeking to profit from the same service they are in violation of.

 

[Abazigal]

Say the "Made for iPhone" licensing agreement forced you to sell your hardware through Apple stores only. Does that seem reasonable? Yet that's exactly what happens with iPhone apps.

I suppose it ultimately comes down to what you want.

I am reminded that what the developer may want on his end may not be what the consumer wants, and that something which is beneficial to the developer may not necessarily be good for the end user as well.

As a consumer, iTunes means that my billing information stays with Apple and never filters down to the end user. Sign-in-with-Apple means the developer never gets my actual contact details, which means, amongst other things, that I can turn off annoying advertisements and newsletters at the flick of a switch.

Forcing developers to go through the App Store means that I as a consumer know that apps are inherently safer and more secure because they have been vetted and scrutinised by a third party whose business model involves me paying for a better user experience (which means that in this regard at least, Apple’s interests are aligned with my own). I enjoy being able to purchase my apps all in one place and manage updates centrally compared to visiting a different website for each one.

Everything the developers have decried as being onerous or inconvenient for them has also had the effect of being beneficial to me as the end user. Yet how many of them would care enough to do this for me, the consumer, if their hands weren’t forced by Apple?

Is it fair? Personally for me, even if some of the rules are subsequently judged illegal or unfair, I still value Apple’s tight control of third party app distribution as a guard against most malware and a protection of privacy, and this is one of the main reasons why I am an Apple user in the first place.

 

[Rigby]

Apple has the right to refuse service to a developer fails to meet the conditions agreed to upon creation of the account, as well as conditions of app approval and rejection.

Would you say it's reasonable for Hey to expect to be rejected when apps like Fastmail, Gmail, or Protonmail, which offer the same type of service and are not required to offer in-app subscriptions, have been approved?

 

[acidblood]

Talk about an understatement.

You download an app that promises something that you you're obviously somewhat interested in
Then you get a login prompt and that's it.
Even the help tells you nothing at all but that you need an account.

I suppose 99% of those who try it from there will just delete the crap immediately.
(actually even demanding an account creation makes me bail out virtually instantly - too much hassle, too much risk for my privacy - it would need to be something I want badly before I even create an account)

Guess you don't use Netflix then? Prime Video? Dropbox? Gmail? The list goes on and on and on and on and on.

 

[Sam Kass]

Ok... so offer a $999 in-app monthly subscription that enables everything. Or you can sign up as before on the website for the existing price and your password unlocks the app. Problem solved.

 

[acidblood]

How are they “tricking” anyone? Apple does not set the app price — the developer does. The developers whining about this want all of the benefits of the App Store distribution platform without paying the cost.

I'm pretty sure they want all of the benefits of the app store -- I mean, otherwise they would just offer the app for download on their web site, which the user could directly load to their iPhone... oh, wait, you can't do that.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Would you say it's reasonable for Hey to expect to be rejected when apps like Fastmail, Gmail, or Protonmail, which offer the same type of service and are not required to offer in-app subscriptions, have been approved?

The basecamp app does not meet the requirements for approval. Basecamp is trying to bully Apple into doing what it wants.

I don’t believe Basecamp’s argument is reasonable.

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Here’s the thing. Apple is paying for the servers that process the in-app payment, the credit card processing, handling all the charge disputes and chargebacks/fraud requests from the credit card company, etc.

That’s not a $0 Bill for Apple. Credit card chargebacks cost businesses a significant amount of money, as well as employing the iTunes App Store support agents, data center infrastructure, they designed and built Xcode, add new features to iOS that enable new features in the apps, handle push notifications, etc.

And the yearly developer fee of $99 in no way covers all of that. So they have to take a cut somewhere.

Xcode is free to download. Apple charges the developer a $99/year fee to be in the app store. If they wanted to double dip, they shouldn't have allowed free apps in the first place.
[automerge]1592527005[/automerge]

The basecamp app does not meet the requirements for approval. Basecamp is trying to bully Apple into doing wants.

I don’t believe Basecamp’s argument is reasonable.

It's an email app. It's literally no different than the gmail app.

 

[acidblood]

If Hey doesn’t like the terms, they can go elsewhere. You don’t go to another person’s house and dictate what you and others will do.

Hey wants to benefit from Apple’s infrastructure without cost or responsibility. Apple is within their rights to tell Hey to go pound sand.

Say I, as an Apple user who ridiculously overpaid for an iPhone, for some reason would really, really benefit from the Hey app.

With Apple's attitude, not only the developer being screwed, but the customer as well, who already paid for the hardware. Apple shouldn't have a say over which apps I can install on my device, that I bought with my money.

But somehow people got used to this situation and now even defend it.

 

[arvinsim]

Say I, as an Apple user who ridiculously overpaid for an iPhone, for some reason would really, really benefit from the Hey app.

With Apple's attitude, not only the developer being screwed, but the customer as well, who already paid for the hardware. Apple shouldn't have a say over which apps I can install on my device, that I bought with my money.

But somehow people got used to this situation and now even defend it.

Yeah, I think it would make a negative impact on iPhone users who uses the app.

 

[Apple_Robert]

Say I, as an Apple user who ridiculously overpaid for an iPhone, for some reason would really, really benefit from the Hey app.

With Apple's attitude, not only the developer being screwed, but the customer as well, who already paid for the hardware. Apple shouldn't have a say over which apps I can install on my device, that I bought with my money.

But somehow people got used to this situation and now even defend it.

Your argument appears to be Apple has to legally abide by all terms it offers to customers, while you as a customer don’t have to abide by the same terms.

It is rather illogical to buy a product you feel is overpriced, not to mention unhappy with, from a company with policies you don’t agree with, and then come here and make victimhood retorts.

I have yet to see anything illegal by Apple towards Basecamp. On the other hand, I have seen several making emotional appeals about “fair,” others are doing it too argument.
[automerge]1592528223[/automerge]
Arvinsim, if you are going to down vote my opinion, why not offer a retort showing I am factually incorrect?

 

[acidblood]

Of course Apple "makes something". The iPhone wouldn't be the seller that it is today without a rich selection of 3rd party apps. They didn't open the app store for altruistic reasons. They also charge every developer $100/year for the privilege of developing apps for their devices.

I don't really understand why some people argue against their own interests on behalf of a super-rich megacorp. Would you really be happy if there were no more free apps and you had to pay an additional 30% for services you subscribe to so you can use them on your $1000 phone?

This. This. 100% this.

I guess these are the same people applauding governments all around the world for simultaneously curtailing the few remaining civil liberties and destroying the economy with no actual results to show for it.
[automerge]1592528563[/automerge]

Your argument appears to be Apple has to legally abide by all terms it offers to customers, while you as a customer don’t have to abide by the same terms.

It is rather illogical to buy a product you feel is overpriced, not to mention unhappy with, from a company with policies you don’t agree with, and then come here and make victimhood retorts.

Regarding the first point, I really don't follow, could you expand on it?

Regarding the second point, yeah, looking back it is illogical that I willingly parted with over $1,000 for a phone, especially one from a company that, day after day, shows they only pay lip service to their customer's interests. I do not intend to make that mistake again in the future.

 

[imnotthewalrus]

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

Someone who gets it. And can read.
[automerge]1592529073[/automerge]

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.)

Poor example. The Gmail service is free to begin with, as are any of its other services, which can be upgraded for a fee - but still function without the upgrade.

 

[Naraxus]

The EU and US Congress should investigate Apple for extorting 30% from developers.....

 

[imnotthewalrus]

What about Dropbox? That’s considered a “reader” app by Apple’s standard.

Sigh...Dropbox is free and functional without paying for additional storage.
[automerge]1592529726[/automerge]

Ya, that’s a pretty flaky argument.

No, no it is not. “Reader” apps by definition is where media is consumed. The data goes one way only.

 

[ouimetnick]

Guideline 3.1.3 does define reader apps "in English" as: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VOIP, cloud storage, or approved services such as classroom management apps.

Take the time to actually read and learn before spouting off.
[automerge]1592523818[/automerge]


Yes it is clearly defined. Does anyone read anymore?
[automerge]1592523922[/automerge]



This is among the most ridiculous things I've ever read. Do you also complain that you pay more for groceries than you should because the grocery store pays for rent?

What is a “professional database”? I would consider my email inbox to fall under that category and “cloud storage“ (emails, email attachments like photos, documents, etc are stored in the cloud)


To quote you directly, take the time to actually read and learn before spouting off.
[automerge]1592530005[/automerge]

A “reader” app only consumes, it doesn’t generate or create.

Again, Spotify, and Dropbox allow sharing. I can generate a playlist in Spotify, I can upload and share in Dropbox.
[automerge]1592530139[/automerge]

Sigh...Dropbox is free and functional without paying for additional storage.
[automerge]1592529726[/automerge]

No, no it is not. “Reader” apps by definition is where media is consumed. The data goes one way only.

Data goes both ways fam. When I creat a playlist in Spotify, it syncs with Spotify’s servers. When I stop watching a video in Netflix, Netflix remembers where I left off because the app tells Nerflix’s servers where I stopped. Data is being transmitted bidirectionally.

 

[Ein2015]

I looked at Fastmail on the iOS app store. Says in the app description, even: "Note: You must be either a paid subscriber or have verified your trial Fastmail account to use this app. You must be online to access your mail."

Having a hard time understanding how Fastmail is different than Hey.

Apple is the IBM of phones.

 

[boss.king]

Schiller says that this is not an ideal app experience for users.

"You download the app and it doesn't work, that's not what we want on the store," says Schiller. This, he says, is why Apple requires in-app purchases to offer the same purchasing functionality as they would have elsewhere.

Then why do Spotify and Netflix get to offer a "not ideal app experience" to far, far more users? Make it make sense, Phil.

 

[7149041]

Just put the 30% premium on the IAP price, same as Spotify did, same as DownDog did - sell cheaper through your own site. People who know about this mechanism, will go to your site. Ones that don’t will buy IAP or go somewhere else.

 

[I7guy]

Then why do Spotify and Netflix get to offer a "not ideal app experience" to far, far more users? Make it make sense, Phil.

Who says netflix has a "not ideal app experience"? Not perfect is worlds away from not ideal.

 

[Rogifan]

Then why do Spotify and Netflix get to offer a "not ideal app experience" to far, far more users? Make it make sense, Phil.

And how about Kindle and Nook? Sure you can browse in the Kindle app so not exactly the same but you can’t buy anything. Wouldn’t it be more consumer friendly if you could buy a book right in the app?

 

[boss.king]

Who says netflix has a "not ideal app experience"? Not perfect is worlds away from not ideal.

Those were Phil Schiller's own words describing the experience with apps that do not allow in-app sign-ups. That applies to Netflix as well. I'm just trying to see how far the logic will bend.

 

[dragoon2745]

Without reading the definition of a reader app, it's funny that a e-mail/messaging app doesn't qualify as a "reader" app.