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

101–110 of 338 posts

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#101

Post by paxys »

samwillis wrote: post #83

If Apple are taking issue with this being a “consumer” email service, Fastmail[0] have exactly the same setup, download the app but have to go to website (no direct links) to signup and pay. How is it not also blocked? My only thoughts are that fastmail is also accessible through imap and has corporate accounts with centralised billing. If Basecamp add company accounts to Hay, which they have always said is coming la…

Heck if we're talking about inconsistency we don't even have to look at other apps. Apple itself already approved Hey (and it is in the App Store right now), but is now rejecting updates, simply because it got assigned to a different agent this time around.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#102

Post by josho »

antoncohen wrote: post #34
ipsum2 wrote: post #4

What's infuriating is Apple's inconsistency. Some apps offer subscriptions outside of the app store and are still there (including Basecamp!)

There might be other examples, but Basecamp doesn't fit. Most Basecamp users don't pay for Basecamp, a company does. It is like Jira, individual users don't pay for it. Basecamp also has a limited free plan, as does Jira Cloud. Hey is currently only for individuals, there is no free option, every user must pay. (I'm not defending Apple taking a cut of subscriptions. Just pointing out a difference.)

I think you nailed it. All the consumer subscription apps I could think of offer in app purchase. While the apps that target businesses do not. It seems Apple is enforcing their rules to selectively target consumer oriented apps.

Which, from a consumer point of view I appreciate it. I like Apple subscriptions.

However, for the businesses selling the 30% cut is hard to stomach.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#103

Post by chedabob »

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.

> problem is how wildly unevenly it is applied

This is one of my biggest frustrations with App Review.

It's easy to convince clients to budget for a few days exploratory work that might be rejected, but they're less inclined to do so with the possibility of an approval not being permanent, and then having to sink a lot more money into reworking that functionality at an indeterminate point in the future.

Sometimes you get stung because you're genuinely trying to slip something through that breaks the rules, but other times you get a reviewer with an axe to grind. One app I worked on was in the store for 18 months before they took issue with the way we'd implemented subscriptions. They were also not happy that there were links to Amazon, which if you clicked around for a bit, would take you to Prime Video or Amazon App Store.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#104

Post by basch »

Despegar wrote: post #95
basch wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is "reading my email from the hey server" different from "reading a video from the netflix server"? Neither app functions without a separate, non apple subscription. The main criticism of Hey, from apples perspective, is that the app doesnt just work when you download it, but the same applies to netflix. I personally think Hey could get around it by adding some other kind of feature to the app, like a way to read…

Read the full statement that Apple gave to Hey and the media [1]. If Hey made their email client a standard works with any email account then it'd be fine without in-app purchases. The specific Hey service could be purchased outside the App Store if they want to avoid giving Apple a cut. [1] https://twitter.com/markgurman/status/1273719726196187136

I don't think Hey wants to be an email client that works with other providers. They should make their free feature something else entirely.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#105

Post by dangoor »

realtalk_sp wrote: post #88
terracatta wrote: post #26

This letter is actually astonishing. In this letter Apple: * Chastises them for making free apps in the past * Reminds them they've had to distribute their apps for free (almost as if they should be grateful and now give them some money) * States they would accept their app if it provided unrelated functionality or access to competitor products (who are oddly not subject to the same rules). * Implies that everyone is…

Isn't Superhuman using TestFlight to get around the App Store problem? That was the case last I heard of it.

I believe Superhuman added the in app purchase.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#106

Post by arnvald »

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)

It seems that most of the above either offer some features for free or offer in-app purchases:

* Spotify offers free tier

* Kindle doesn't require buying books, technically you can use it to read documents that you send to your free account

* Netflix and Youtube allow to subscribe and pay via app-store

I'm not sure about the rest, but it seems that even Netflix and Amazon follow the rules.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#107

Post by [deleted] »

gnicholas wrote: post #87

> "All the rules they're citing should apply to Gmail and Outlook as well," Hansson told Axios. " I agree Apple is being inconsistent here, but not vis a vis gmail and outlook. Those are free services, so they’re not the right comparison. Apple doesn’t require IAP for these because there is no payment involved. Netflix, on the other hand, proves that Apple does allow apps that are useless unless the user has a separa…

[deleted]

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#108

Post by Hamuko »

NotSammyHagar wrote: post #73
Hamuko wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Reminds they've had to distribute their apps for free Apple has never had to distribute any application for free since you need to pay $99 per year to have anything listed on the App Store.

but that $99 charge is really a way to reduce trolls and scams. For regular us devs it almost meaningless, it blocks poor people in the west and third world devs.

If there were 10,000 developers on the App Store, their yearly membership fees come to a total of $990,000.

That's pretty good revenue for troll/scam reduction.

Now do the same math for the actual number of active App Store devs.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#110

Post by e_y_ »

zaroth wrote: post #16
ProAm wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine, let me install software without going to the App store.

Here you go; https://developer.apple.com/programs/enroll/

The developer agreement states that you're only allowed to sideload apps that you're responsible for developing yourself. Maybe if it's open source you could make an argument for that being allowed, but it's not a general purpose install path for consumers.
Post reply on HN