Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 338 posts

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#61

Post by evan_ »

scarface74 wrote: post #56
evan_ wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should they have to spend a month building a whole new iPhone-first onboarding flow and updating their entire app to accept a different subscription provider? Who's to say that if they spend that hundreds of thousands of dollars of developer time Apple won't just knock them down for some other imagined infraction?

Hundreds of thousands of dollars to create in app subscriptions? There are many indy developers that have done that as a one man operation.

I said dollars, not hours. I stand by that estimate.

Right now there's no mobile-first onboarding flow. That's a completely new thing they'll have to build. They'll also need to update all of their code that checks subscriptions, handles dunning, etc., to now work with multiple billing providers. So yeah, it's going to take a lot of time, which is a lot of dollars.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#62

Post by justrudd »

scarface74 wrote: post #45
ggregoire wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about Netflix but you can use the Spotify app for free, right? Now from what I understand, Apple says that you can't do anything with the "Hey" app until you get a subscription[1]. Which is then different from the Spotify app. [1] "The Hey Email app is marketed as an email app on the App Store, but when users download your app, it does not work," Apple said in a letter to Basecamp CEO Jason Fried on Thur…

You can’t do anything with Netflix without paying.

But Netflix offers in app purchases.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#63

Post by Hamuko »

terracatta wrote: post #57
AYBABTME wrote: post #24

Probably naive question, but couldn't they markup the In-App-Subscription by whatever % of cut Apple is taking? The same is done by restaurants for things like Uber Eat/Postmate: they have their prices on their menu, and a marked-up price on these platforms. downvotes: mind explaining why my naive question is not a worthy contribution/question? or if you just disagree, I'm genuinely interested in understanding what I…

> The same is done by restaurants for things like Uber Eat/Postmate: they have their prices on their menu, and a marked-up price on these platforms I do not believe Apple's tax for IAP applies for physical goods or services. Only digital products or goods. If those companies are charging more, it might be for another reason. > 3.1.5 Physical Goods and Services Outside of the App: If your app enables people to purchas…

>I do not believe Apple's tax for IAP applies for physical goods or services. Only digital products or goods. If those companies are charging more, it might be for another reason.

Food delivery apps have their own commissions.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#64

Post by grecy »

scarface74 wrote: post #37
Traster wrote: post #5

I don't think picking a fight with Apple as a PR strategy is a good move. The rules on the app store are very clear, if you're charging a subscription for functionality you're providing through an iOS app, that subscription must be available through Apple's payment system. I know people don't like that, but it's not unexpected. So given that Hey knew the rules, it seems a bit manipulative for them to submit their app…

It is very unclear. The rule has been that you cannot advertise that it requires a subscription or provide a link. There are literally a dozen apps that I am personally aware of that require subscriptions and don’t allow in app subscriptions. - Netflix - Sling TV - ATT Now (DirecTVNow) - ACloudGuru - Kindle - Youtube TV - Spotify - Microsoft Office - Hulu Live TV (not regular Hulu)

Well yeah, people & companies with a lot of money get a different set of rules. That's the same in the app store as it is in real life.

I'd be much more interested in seeing in change in real life before some silly app store.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#65

Post by josho »

dilly_li wrote: post #11

The news I read yesterday [0] (from Hey's founder?) painted Apple as the obvious villain. Today's news (the above link) shows a slightly differnet picture. > "The Hey Email app is marketed as an email app on the App Store, but when users download your app, it does not work," Apple said in a letter to Basecamp CEO Jason Fried on Thursday. "Users cannot use the app to access email or perform any useful function until a…

Replace Hey with Salesforce or any number of SaaS services for other examples of apps that don't work as a standalone free app.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#66

Post by ballenf »

If apple would just insist on taking it's cut from ads and indirect revenue from surveillance and spyware, so many of these problems would go away. Apple currently effectively subsidizes the surveillance of its users with adware and spyware apps getting free ride.

The only problem with this approach is that it's basically completely unworkable. But other than that minor issue, it's a great idea. Maybe the ad revenue side of things could be done, but the spyware side is hard to even come up with a theoretical valuation.

While it's theory only, one could even theorize gmail having to put a valuation on the user profile data gathered and give Apple a cut. Either that or stop surveilling its users.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#67

Post by gruez »

nkcmr wrote: post #17
Traster wrote: post #5

I don't think picking a fight with Apple as a PR strategy is a good move. The rules on the app store are very clear, if you're charging a subscription for functionality you're providing through an iOS app, that subscription must be available through Apple's payment system. I know people don't like that, but it's not unexpected. So given that Hey knew the rules, it seems a bit manipulative for them to submit their app…

By itself, this argument makes sense. But the problem is how wildly unevenly it is applied. If you're "big enough" you get a pass. Also, they got their first version through without any issues or a peep about this rule. And only when they needed to push a codefix is when they got held up. If you're going to have rules, they MUST be applied evenly.

>But the problem is how wildly unevenly it is applied. If you're "big enough" you get a pass.

>If you're going to have rules, they MUST be applied evenly.

It's also possible that it is being applied evenly, it's just that the big guys negotiated private exemptions.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#68

Post by Despegar »

scarface74 wrote: post #37
Traster wrote: post #5

I don't think picking a fight with Apple as a PR strategy is a good move. The rules on the app store are very clear, if you're charging a subscription for functionality you're providing through an iOS app, that subscription must be available through Apple's payment system. I know people don't like that, but it's not unexpected. So given that Hey knew the rules, it seems a bit manipulative for them to submit their app…

It is very unclear. The rule has been that you cannot advertise that it requires a subscription or provide a link. There are literally a dozen apps that I am personally aware of that require subscriptions and don’t allow in app subscriptions. - Netflix - Sling TV - ATT Now (DirecTVNow) - ACloudGuru - Kindle - Youtube TV - Spotify - Microsoft Office - Hulu Live TV (not regular Hulu)

They have a specific section in the rules for "Reader" apps like Netflix and Spotify. It's not unclear, it's been there since 2018.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#69

Post by uoylj »

neximo64 wrote: post #25
Traster wrote: post #5

I don't think picking a fight with Apple as a PR strategy is a good move. The rules on the app store are very clear, if you're charging a subscription for functionality you're providing through an iOS app, that subscription must be available through Apple's payment system. I know people don't like that, but it's not unexpected. So given that Hey knew the rules, it seems a bit manipulative for them to submit their app…

Explain Spotify and Netflix? The Hey app copies Netflix almost exactly, even in the language used for the subscription? How is that very clear for a rule?

Spotify just pays the tax, but my understanding was they filed an antitrust complaint in the EU, because Apple is charging them while offering a competing music service.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#70

Post by chimeracoder »

Hamuko wrote: post #27
Traster wrote: post #5

I don't think picking a fight with Apple as a PR strategy is a good move. The rules on the app store are very clear, if you're charging a subscription for functionality you're providing through an iOS app, that subscription must be available through Apple's payment system. I know people don't like that, but it's not unexpected. So given that Hey knew the rules, it seems a bit manipulative for them to submit their app…

> The rules on the app store are very clear Are they? According to Protocol.com, which got in contact with Apple over the thing: > Apple allows these kinds of client apps — where you can't sign up, only sign in — for business services but not consumer products. That's why Basecamp, which companies typically pay for, is allowed on the App Store when Hey, which users pay for, isn't. But if I search for the word "consum…

> >Apple allows these kinds of client apps — where you can't sign up, only sign in — for business services but not consumer products.

Does that mean Netflix is a "business service" and not a consumer product?

Post reply on HN