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

181–190 of 338 posts

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#181

Post by bilbo0s »

scarface74 wrote: post #168
realtalk_sp wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're describing stores that exist in a competitive ecosystem with price variation. The analogy breaks down because "buyers of products" doesn't map one-to-one with "owners of iPhones" and because distribution of physical goods actually has significant costs. Assuming you are in fact in the tech industry, you should know that near-zero marginal distribution cost is one of the core principles underpinning software ec…

Let’s talk about console makers then..... How many stores actually “transparently” tell you their markup?

Just throwing this idea out here, but maybe game consoles and retail stores are also operating unethically?

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#182

Post by bilbo0s »

s800 wrote: post #163
realtalk_sp wrote: post #120

Some people here seem to be responding to all of this inappropriately. The simple fact is that Apple is injecting itself as an intermediary in the payment process and extracting a preposterously oversized commission for no meaningful added value. And it's easy to see that Apple knows what they're doing is wrong. They strictly prohibit developers from signaling that there's an extra cost for purchases made through App…

Anyone know what console makers charge developers these days? My experience is from several decades ago, and is comparable to what Apple charges in its store.

But is that unethical as well?

I mean, this story happens to be about Apple, but obviously other retailers could be, (obviously are), engaging in the same practice.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#183

Post by scarface74 »

jollins wrote: post #176
scarface74 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s talk about console makers then..... How many stores actually “transparently” tell you their markup?

I see the game console argument come up a a lot and I really don’t think it sticks. Game consoles are not general purpose computers and have a much more narrow intended purpose. Apple themselves argue that the iPad is just as capable (or more so) than your typical computer, which means that we expect it to be capable of computer-y things which are inherently flexible and versatile, not hamstrung by Apple’s rent-seeki…

What makes a console less of a “General purpose computer” than a phone?

Again. Just like consoles and the Roku - the console makers get a cut of every game sold - even physical games. At one point, Nintendo limited the number of titles third party companies could publish and force them to use their manufacturing facilities.

No retailer just sells things at a markup that covers costs.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#184

Post by scarface74 »

bilbo0s wrote: post #181
scarface74 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s talk about console makers then..... How many stores actually “transparently” tell you their markup?

Just throwing this idea out here, but maybe game consoles and retail stores are also operating unethically?

Wow so now retail stores that have literally been around in one form or another for thousands of years are unethical?

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#185

Post by jollins »

outworlder wrote: post #9
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!)

EDIT: Having deployed a few apps in the past which required login and not being harassed, I thought something else was going on. This seems to be an unspoken policy change. I'm joining the outrage bandwagon now. > What's infuriating is Apple's inconsistency. Some apps offer subscriptions outside of the app store and are still there (including Basecamp!) That doesn't violate guidelines. Unless your app takes users out…

To clarify, Hey does provide only a login, and no outside linking (or reference to outside payment, as Apple requires). Apple is now requiring that in-app-purchases must exist for "consumer apps" that aren't "readers", based on a changed interpretation of existing rules. If the above sounds ambiguous to anyone reading this, that's the issue.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#186

Post by lostmsu »

Uw7yTcf36gTc wrote: post #173
ac29 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They charge 30% because they've amassed 1 billion extremely valuable users who are willing to spend money on apps in their marketplace. This is almost the textbook definition of extortion. "Hey, wouldn't it be a shame if you lost access to all these potential customers? You better give us 30% of your revenue."

You are paying to access the pool of customers. You never had the pool to begin with so you aren’t paying to not “lose access”.

Arguably, that's not true for a typical mail service.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#187

Post by donmcronald »

scarface74 wrote: post #161
realtalk_sp wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They charge 30% because they've amassed 1 billion extremely valuable users who are willing to spend money on apps in their marketplace. Apps that are made up to 42% more expensive (NOTE: the 30% fee applies to all in-app purchases and the first year of subscriptions) in a way that's entirely opaque to those users. The fact that you think this is okay is the only thing I find absurd. You also seem like someone who i…

Would they also be unhappy if they knew the markup for every store? The markup for soda and drinks in a restaurant? Is there anyone who doesn’t know that retailers markup goods?

Those places are handling physical goods and they have a lot of real costs associated with their services. That's not the same as Apple taking 15-30% of revenue for a subscription where the developer is running the entire backend and all Apple does is host a few install / update files.

There's no developer on the planet that would agree to that deal if Apple couldn't use the customers from their phone business as leverage to extort developers on the software distribution side of things.

It's more like a bouncer at a club getting 15-30% of ALL revenue because they control the door.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#188

Post by realtalk_sp »

scarface74 wrote: post #161
realtalk_sp wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They charge 30% because they've amassed 1 billion extremely valuable users who are willing to spend money on apps in their marketplace. Apps that are made up to 42% more expensive (NOTE: the 30% fee applies to all in-app purchases and the first year of subscriptions) in a way that's entirely opaque to those users. The fact that you think this is okay is the only thing I find absurd. You also seem like someone who i…

Would they also be unhappy if they knew the markup for every store? The markup for soda and drinks in a restaurant? Is there anyone who doesn’t know that retailers markup goods?

I think there are a lot of people who don't understand just how much retailers mark up some goods. But they're starting to get the idea now that D2C is increasing and you can see items sold directly by businesses at prices much lower than on e.g. Amazon.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#189

Post by jollins »

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 store in this area have changed interpretations without notice. It not being a new rule but becoming far more strict all of a sudden is a big part of the issue.

Also, going to the press works. DHH is taking one for the team by fighting this.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#190

Post by jonbeebe »

Why don’t these rules apply to banking apps then?

I wouldn’t consider them business-only as most individuals interacting with the App Store have bank accounts, so that argument breaks down.

I wouldn’t consider them stictly “reader” apps as you can perform many non-passive things in many banking apps (make deposits, iniatiate transfers to and from accounts, pay bills, etc), so that argument doesn’t stick either.

You can’t use the app unless you have a (most of the time) paid account.

Post reply on HN