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

221–230 of 338 posts

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#221

Post by nrmitchi »

donmcronald wrote: post #206
nrmitchi wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would personally love to see Hey come back with a free Apple version of their service which gives the user a hilariously long @hey.com email address and lets them use it.

Yeah, like the digital equivalent of work to rule. 1MB storage, no attachments, forced signature, etc.. It would be hilarious to see Apple respond to that because it's still more ethical than all the trial subscription scams they allow on the app store.

I wouldn't even put any limits on the account (outside of the fact that your address would be an exceptionally unfriendly string.

Since this sign up is through Apple, I assume Hey would have the device ID, and could limit repeat/duplicate/spam sign ups in some way.

I am also assuming that the marginal cost of hosting an account is trivial.

In this situation, _worst case_, someone creates a free account, likes how it works, and then has to pay $99 elsewhere in order to get a reasonable address.

This would kind of be the definition of malicious compliance. And honestly, ya, I would love it.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#222

Post by Qub3d »

davidivadavid wrote: post #170
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #100

The problem is, Apple taking a cut from service where they don't own the device (you bought it from them; you own it) don't provide the network (you contract for that yourself) don't provide the content Its just some kind of strong-arm tactic - they do it because they can. Like some bouncer outside a club who demands money, but is not employed by the club nor the act. Just standing in the door and demanding money, an…

That's a pretty obvious straw man. They take a cut for the marketplace. Which is the service apps rely on.

They also require apps to go through their walled garden. If they had an F-Droid equivalent (Cydia doesn't count here) then maybe people would be more amicable to this rebuttal.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#223

Post by stephc_int13 »

scarface74 wrote: post #157
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…

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. You mean like every retail store - digital and physical?

Do you know the margins of retail stores?

Last time I checked it was not close to 30%

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#224

Post by AnonC »

Not defending Apple here, but I see commenters making different sorts of comparisons and saying that Apple is taking an unfairly large cut. Can someone do an objective comparison with publishers of print and ebooks and what commissions they take before the author gets paid (please consider all kinds of publishers and publishing platforms)? AFAIK, that industry is far worse (look at pragprog.com to see what’s considered a fantastic rate), and hardly any reader/consumer seems to be complaining.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#225

Post by realtalk_sp »

AnonC wrote: post #224

Not defending Apple here, but I see commenters making different sorts of comparisons and saying that Apple is taking an unfairly large cut. Can someone do an objective comparison with publishers of print and ebooks and what commissions they take before the author gets paid (please consider all kinds of publishers and publishing platforms)? AFAIK, that industry is far worse (look at pragprog.com to see what’s consider…

I find it odd that so many people are relying on the "well they do it too argument", as if Apple has a monopoly on monopolistic business practices.

If you want an example of a horrible middleman in publishing that's slowly being extinguished by rebelling counterparties, take a look at Elsevier.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#227

Post by bjtitus »

scarface74 wrote: post #164
ballenf wrote: post #66

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…

Are people actually asking Apple to get in the ad business? It’s already a step too far that they sell ads on the App Store.

They were in the ad business years ago with iAd. https://developer.apple.com/support/iad/

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#228

Post by scarface74 »

bjtitus wrote: post #227
scarface74 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are people actually asking Apple to get in the ad business? It’s already a step too far that they sell ads on the App Store.

They were in the ad business years ago with iAd. https://developer.apple.com/support/iad/

And it was a complete disaster.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#229

Post by bjtitus »

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…

Yes, but streaming video apps are explicitly given a pass on that rule, along with several other categories:

"magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage, and approved services such as classroom management apps"

How the hell they came up with this list is anyone's guess. Seems like they kind of tacked things on that they were concerned about completely removing.

Re: Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey

#230

Post by bjtitus »

Despegar wrote: post #84
nkcmr wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How do you "get a pass if you're big enough"? If you're trying to use Netflix or Spotify as an example of big companies getting a pass then it'd have to only apply to them. But it doesn't. Smaller subscription video or music apps could use the same section in the App Review Guidelines for "Reader" apps to have an app without in-app purchases that you buy outside the App Store.

This doesn't mean the Guidelines are foolproof and always consistently applied.

If you're just trying to read the Guidelines as legalese then it seems to me like there's some serious ambiguity with what exactly the "Reader" section allows.

It seems like Basecamp gets a pass based on the "access to professional databases" exemption. But at what point does a service that caters to consumers AND businesses cross over that line?

The App Store Review Guidelines have been a nightmare to parse through and the Review process an inconsistent mess for many years now. IAP really took it to a whole new level.

Post reply on HN