
Apple rejects appeal from email app Hey - ksec
https://www.axios.com/apple-rejects-appeal-from-e-mail-app-hey-4ea2f994-2d8c-49e9-9713-6db35b3aea84.html
======
realtalk_sp
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 Apple's system or that there are alternative payment
options available. A well-informed consumer would be a clear threat to Apple's
gravy train.

This system should have never emerged to begin with. It's highly unethical
and, given the direction things are taking [1], will likely be found in
violation of antitrust laws.

[1] [https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/13/supreme-court-rules-
agains...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/13/supreme-court-rules-against-
apple-allowing-an-app-store-antitrust-case-to-proceed/)

~~~
_jal
I don't disagree.

But you do realize you could also be describing the credit card market?

~~~
nrmitchi
I think most people understand that the parent could be describing credit card
markets, and I don't think that anyone is trying to make the case that credit
card companies don't also take anti-competitive actions.

But the typical credit card fee is ~3%, which is literally an order of
magnitude less, and Visa/Mastercard/etc also don't prohibit their merchants
from accepting other forms of payment.

~~~
_jal
They do, in fact, make agreements with merchants to lock out other forms of
payment. It isn't universal, true.

They also contractually forbid merchants from taking actions that could make
the fee more apparent to consumers, which drives up prices for non-credit
customers, although there isn't a direct analog for Apple I can think of.

~~~
kelnos
> _They also contractually forbid merchants from taking actions that could
> make the fee more apparent to consumers_

Has this changed over time, though? I often see a lot of brick-and-mortar
merchants advertising different prices for cash/debit vs. credit. I probably
see it most often at gas stations, but I see it in regular retail stores and
restaurants sometimes as well. I moved to a new house earlier this year and
even the movers offered a lower price for cash.

~~~
mdlman
Definitely. In the U.S. at least, there were literally laws in place
prohibiting merchants from mentioning credit card surcharges or changing
prices accordingly, although details varied by state. Supreme Court ruled
against one a few years ago on a free speech basis [1]. Now more, if not all,
are being challenged.

[1] [https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c1069ffd-
dafb...](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c1069ffd-
dafb-48a1-af14-b75c908244bf) (hopefully the link works)

------
samwillis
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 later in the year, does that not
fix the problem?

[0] [https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/fastmail-email-
calendar/id9313...](https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/fastmail-email-
calendar/id931370077)

~~~
paxys
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.

~~~
sam_lowry_
This time, the agent is Tim Cook.

------
JoeAltmaier
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, and you have to
pay because you want to get in.

All this splitting hairs over exactly who they strong-arm and who they don't
is beside the point.

~~~
scarface74
And the console makers? Google Play? The movie theaters? Amazon? Spotify?

~~~
vertis
Google Play is a bad example here because you can absolutely use app stores
like F-Droid or Amazon to get content onto your device.

Arguably, they have problems as well, but it's not an apples to apples (no pun
intended) comparison.

One has a completely locked down ecosystem that people are worried to speak
against lest they lose access to it.

The other has alternatives, albeit ones without huge traction. It does allow
you to make decisions about whether Google Play gives value (discovery, etc).

~~~
scarface74
So how has that worked out for developers who chose to use alternate stores?

~~~
corkmask
You are confusing market access and distribution. If I wanted alot of eyes on
my app and I saw a benefit from the appstore then I would pay the 30%.

All I want is being able to give to MY customers, who I paid MY money to
acquire, a native app. Apple is refusing to allow this, unless I pay
protection money. Textbook rent seeking

------
subdane
Apple has an abusive relationship with developers. I bet this harkens back to
Jobs being pissed about jailbreaking and having to open up the platform. I
think the culture still reflects that basic misunderstanding at the company.
It's ironic, because it's the apps and developers that made the iPhone what it
is - case in point, "There's an app for that," which they actually went and
trademarked.
[https://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/mobile/10/12/app.for.that/inde...](https://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/mobile/10/12/app.for.that/index.html)

~~~
scarface74
You have no idea about how Nintendo and all of the console makers treat
developers. Roku won’t let commercial streaming apps on their platform without
making a deal with them.

~~~
arvinsim
Seems to be a case of whataboutism. Just because someone is doing it doesn't
make it any less wrong.

~~~
scarface74
It’s how the industry has worked from day one. “Wrong” is an opinion. In a
legal sense it’s “precedent”. This is how the entire industry works. Before
Apple, software developers only got a 30% to 40% cut to be in carriers app
stores. Yes they had app stores where you could buy J2ME apps. Most retailers
have a far greater wholesale to retail margin than 30%.

~~~
kelnos
> _“Wrong” is an opinion._

So people aren't allowed to have opinions anymore?

------
boomboomsubban
> The company notes that the store has been operating for more than a decade
> and has never raised fees

"We've never asked for more than a third of your income, what's the problem?"

~~~
donmcronald
That's absolutely hilarious and tone deaf at the same time. Lol.

------
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.

~~~
scarface74
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.

~~~
bjtitus
They were in the ad business years ago with iAd.
[https://developer.apple.com/support/iad/](https://developer.apple.com/support/iad/)

~~~
scarface74
And it was a complete disaster.

------
ipsum2
What's infuriating is Apple's inconsistency. Some apps offer subscriptions
outside of the app store and are still there (including Basecamp!)

~~~
outworlder
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 outside of the
app store to purchase stuff(including the subscription itself) without in app
purchases.

Having an app requiring login is ok. It doesn't matter that the login is
protecting a paid service.

~~~
Hamuko
> _Unless your app takes users outside of the app store to purchase
> stuff(including the subscription itself) without in app purchases._

Where did Hey take users outside of the app?

~~~
outworlder
'Hey' itself may not be doing this right now, I don't know. I was referring
to:

> 3.1.1 In-App Purchase:
    
    
        If you want to unlock features or functionality within your app, (by way of example: subscriptions, in-game currencies, game levels, access to premium content, or unlocking a full version), you must use in-app purchase. Apps may not use their own mechanisms to unlock content or functionality, such as license keys, augmented reality markers, QR codes, etc. Apps and their metadata may not include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms other than in-app purchase.

~~~
scarface74
This isn’t true for most of the OTT streaming cable TV apps. They all require
subscriptions.

~~~
jpalomaki
There’s a special clause for this type of ”reader” apps and it allows external
subscriptions.

”3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased
content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books,
audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage,
and approved services such as classroom management apps), provided that you
agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing
method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other
purchasing methods are not designed to discourage use of in-app purchase.”

Looks like for example Netflix app does even show a link to their registration
page. You can only login to existing account.

------
Traster
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 and then go on a massive PR campaign
about how outraged they are. I understand that they may feel that the app
store rules are unfair, but this whole fanfare seems ridiculous to me. Instead
they seem to think that they're going to benefit from picking a fight with
Apple - it reminds of small youtubers who make expose videos about big
youtubers to try and get people''s attention.

~~~
scarface74
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)

~~~
Despegar
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.

~~~
basch
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 their blog. When it opens on IOS you
have a "sign in" or "continue with the free version" and the free version
aggregates basecamp marketing copies, as long as that free version isnt just a
webview, but some enhanced native experience.

Can they also advertise the cost of their service, through the applepay
experience, as "x+30% apple tax"?

With how much of their app is server side (nearly all of it, minus the
translation from HTML to native,) I wonder how much they can get away with,
without updating the client.

The other interesting thing about this dynamic is, Apple shipped Leopard with
Ruby on Rails, which Basecamp created. So in the past, Apple took Basecamp's
open source code to make OSX more valuable, but now when Basecamp wants to
benefits its users, at no real cost to Apple, Apple says "not without paying
us our cut." Maybe not morally wrong, but at least stinks of bad karma.

~~~
Despegar
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](https://twitter.com/markgurman/status/1273719726196187136)

~~~
basch
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.

------
gnicholas
> _" 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 separate subscription.

~~~
Hamuko
Google does charge for additional Gmail storage in the form of Google One.

~~~
tssva
The Gmail app is not tied to the Gmail email service. It can be used to access
non-Gmail accounts. Google Photos and Google Drive both allow in-app
purchasing of additional storage space billed through Apple.

Edit: Added statement about Gmail app working with non-Gmail email accounts.

------
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.

~~~
xiphias2
You need to go though KYC and other custom checks to get a bank account and
it's a heavily regulated process.

------
terracatta
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 following the rules but them (which is demonstrably false even if you accept the "Reader" and "Business" definitions they provide)

Also, according to DHH, they leaked this letter to the press before sending it
to the Basecamp CEO. Nice.

The argument is so strange, it's almost as if "email" is a special term of art
that causes Apple to categorize this app in a way that is not is not
consistent with other SaaS products. Even with that said, there are no other
similar email apps like Superhuman that are subject to these rules. If I was a
Chat or Email based SaaS company CEO and I relied on the iPhone to complete my
multi-platform value prop, I would be very worried about this happening to my
already approved app.

~~~
Hamuko
> _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.

~~~
NotSammyHagar
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.

~~~
Hamuko
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.

~~~
Traster
Apple's revenue in 2019 was 260.2 billion dollars.

~~~
Hamuko
Yes and?

~~~
NotSammyHagar
That million doesn't mean anything to them is what 200 billion in revenue
means

~~~
Hamuko
It should probably be pointed out that this whole fight is about Apple not
getting 30% of $99 on whatever signups the iOS application for a pre-release
email platform would generate.

And Apple has boasted about having over 20 million registered iOS developers.
Who knows how many of them are actively paying the subscription at the same
time, but it's probably still a very large number.

~~~
Traster
If you think that developer licenses are even in the same order of magnitude
as the value of 30% of in-app purchases I think your intuition is way off.

~~~
dylan-m
30% of in app purchases where the frictionless Apple IAP approach is deemed
less valuable by the developer*

There's a very important distinction here. If Apple made their own in-app
purchase API optional instead of mandatory, it isn't like every single
developer would ditch it overnight. Apple's system is legitimately useful in a
huge number of situations, and everyone knows that. It just isn't wanted
_here_, and that should be okay.

------
ijpsud
Does iOS support PWAs yet? I'd have thought that PWAs would have all the
features required for an email application at this point.

Apparently 20% of Apple's revenue comes from their marketplaces (music, apps,
etc), but in terms of profit it's probably significantly higher since the
costs ought to be much lower than their hardware.

So it seems like there's a decent chance that at least third of their profit
could get wiped out by PWAs in the long run. You'd think they'd be treating
developers a little better.

~~~
ledauphin
my understanding is that their on-device browser monopoly (Safari) cripples
many capabilities of PWAs, like for instance push notifications.

------
whycombagator
Maybe it’s time for Hey to go full PWA. Sunk costs with the native app though

~~~
danieljacksonno
Apple doesn't allow push notifications for PWAs, a fairly essential feature
for an email app

------
hypewatch
> Apple typically gets 30% of in-app subscriptions for the first year and 15%
> of renewals.

I think that 30% then 15% commission are both way too high. Apple should be
able to charge a modest commission fee to be on their App Store but that price
is way too high. Maybe 5% then 3% would be more reasonable.

But the worst part about this is that Apple is so inconsistent with its
enforcement. There is an anti-competitive element to Apple’s enforcement
behavior that is very concerning. I’m surprised that Tim Cook has allowed this
behavior. Long term this will hurt app developers and Tim should understand
that.

------
beardedman
\- An app does not need to be part of the appstore to function

\- It's Apple's store - not a community project, fascinated how people seem to
think they are accountable to some higher authority - it's also totally
optional

\- Apple is the one being consistent

\- HEY is also built by one of the most attention seeking developers in the
world, who's sole purpose seems to be criticising large corporations on
Twitter

\- I like ownership of my data - not a manifesto by a closed door company
based on "promises" and feel good messages

------
AYBABTME
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'm not grasping.

~~~
terracatta
> 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 purchase goods or services that will be consumed outside of the
> app, you must use purchase methods other than in-app purchase to collect
> those payments, such as Apple Pay or traditional credit card entry. Apps may
> facilitate transmission of approved virtual currencies (e.g. Bitcoin,
> DogeCoin) provided that they do so in compliance with all state and federal
> laws for the territories in which the app functions.

> but couldn't they markup the In-App-Subscription by whatever % of cut Apple
> is taking?

They can do this but they are not allowed to inform their customers on the iOS
app that the prices are lower elsewhere

> Section 3.1.3(b) Multiplatform Services: Apps that operate across multiple
> platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they
> have acquired elsewhere, including consumable items in multi-platform games,
> provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app.
> You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing
> method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about
> other purchasing methods must not discourage use of in-app purchase.

~~~
Hamuko
> _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.

~~~
terracatta
Source? I believe you, but I am interested in learning more and I'm not
finding anything. Would love to read if you have a link handy.

~~~
Hamuko
[https://www.saddlebackbbq.com/how-google-doordash-grubhub-
co...](https://www.saddlebackbbq.com/how-google-doordash-grubhub-conspire-
screw-local-restaurants)

You can find plenty of stuff on HN alone if you search for "grubhub" (and
probably with any other food delivery app name).

------
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.

~~~
realtalk_sp
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.

~~~
AnonC
If at all my earlier comment was misunderstood, my intent was not to point or
justify Apple's policies by implying that "someone else is doing worse, so
it's ok for Apple to do this" on the cuts it takes. It's just that the
comparisons seem highly selective and dismissive of counter-arguments (there
was one such point about video game consoles that was dismissed too).

------
chaostheory
The big problem with Apple and Nintendo is that compared to other companies,
they don't have enough rules for app submission written out, and that many of
the rules are vague enough to be subject to individual interpretation. The end
result is chaos.

------
embrassingstuff
From the article

> could work within Apple's rules by allowing the app to function as a reader
> for standard e-mail, while also offering Hey subscriptions

This is apple's new stance or is it conventional wisdom for store policy?

If only Hey also worked with regular mail all would have been well?

~~~
paxys
It was a suggestion on how to update their app to comply with the policy -
basically offer a free version that's just like any other email app.

~~~
nrmitchi
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.

~~~
donmcronald
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.

~~~
nrmitchi
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.

------
projektfu
Here's another possible solution. Make the "Hey" app a general e-mail client
for all e-mail clients that support the "Hey" protocol, whatever that is.
Publish a rough draft of the protocol and call it a day.

------
ggregoire
Why does Basecamp refuse (?) to add the in-app subscription? Is it only to
avoid sharing their revenues with Apple or are there other reasons?

(sorry I'm not that familiar with this topic and didn't follow the whole
story)

~~~
donmcronald
30% (then 15% forever) of revenue is a huge amount of money. If Hey thinks
they're following the rules and the app got approved the first time, Hey might
already be committed to pricing that's going to be hard to change. It could
break their business model.

It's also really obvious it's nothing more than rent seeking because Apple
adds almost no value. The infrastructure for payments, updates, etc. on other
platforms is still needed, so I'm sure the only reason they're even using the
Apple app store is because it's the only way to distribute their app. 15% of
lifetime revenue for Apple to host some update files is a really bad deal.

IMHO if Apple approved it "by mistake" the first time they should have just
owned the mistake and granted Hey a one-off exemption from the rules.

------
musicale
Apple is certainly an illegal monopoly for not allowing other game/app stores
on its handheld devices and dictating the terms and conditions for developers.
And hiding behind the DMCA to ban circumvention tools for its intrusive DRM.
And competing against its own third-party developers. Bring on the anti-trust
lawsuits!

Fortunately we don't have to patronize Apple's evil monopoly on handheld
gaming and game/app stores anymore. As for me, I'll go back to playing Animal
Crossing, which I bought on Nintendo's eShop on my Nintendo Switch! (Then I'll
maybe I'll lay down some tracks with Korg Gadget and write some code in
SmileBASIC. Maybe I'll buy some DLC for my favorite games also - all from the
Nintendo eShop, naturally.)

/s

------
lolsal
I just can't enraged by a platform enforcing their rules. Don't use their
platform, or play by their rules?

~~~
zadkey
One of the issues that is brought up in the article is that they enforce their
rules selectively.

"All the rules they're citing should apply to Gmail and Outlook as well,"
Hansson told Axios. "So it's laughable that they state that we must follow the
rules that everyone follows when it's plain as day that not everyone follows
the same rules."

~~~
lolsal
I know it's frustrating, but similarly I enforce my diet selectively. It's
their prerogative, right?

------
skc
It's a pity that so many companies have effectively locked themselves inside
the walled garden. They did it willingly too and it's fantastic until it's
not.

Every time the topic of Apples app store rules comes up on HN the general
consensus always seems to be that the rules are fair.

Now that a highly visible company is kicking up a fuss it'll be interesting to
see if Apple even responds

------
MBCook
It continues to amaze me that Apple is picking this fight the week before
WWDC.

We know that the EU is already looking at Apple, and now the US seems to be
making noise about it.

And they decide to have this fight.

I usually understand Apple but this one… eludes me.

~~~
Hamuko
Even more bizarre considering Hey is not even publicly available yet. They
could have easily deferred this fight without it having any effect on the
absolutely miniscule number of new clients that are getting in before the
general availability.

------
dilly_li
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 after they go to the Basecamp
> website for Hey Email and purchase a license to use the Hey Email app."

Basically Hey doesn't work as a standalone free app. The user has to download
it AND subscribe somehow. Apple basically dictates, the developers either 1)
offer some Reader-like free features, or 2) pay the Apple tax and build the
subscription feature with IAP.

I am not saying the 30% tax is justifiable.

The logic behind Apple's rejection doesn't seem completely unreasonable to me.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23542937](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23542937)

~~~
htunnicliff
This is how the Netflix app works.

~~~
justrudd
How so? I'm looking at the Netflix app in the App store right now and it
offers in app purchases. I don't have to sign up before using it. I can sign
up in the app (I'm assuming based on this screenshot from the App Store -
[https://imgur.com/a/t6AqwEx](https://imgur.com/a/t6AqwEx)). I already have an
account. Not going to jump through hoops to try it out.

Edited: added screenshot

~~~
Hamuko
> _I can sign up in the app_

You absolutely can't. The first thing you see when you download the app is a
info string telling you how you can't sign up inside the app.

[https://miro.medium.com/1*-mAqC-14gV7zNvWdn_SNxA.jpeg](https://miro.medium.com/1*-mAqC-14gV7zNvWdn_SNxA.jpeg)

------
whywhywhywhy
Apples idea of the future is one I no longer want any part in.

------
Hamuko
> _" 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 after they go to the Basecamp
> website for Hey Email and purchase a license to use the Hey Email app."_

Imagine if all applications on the App Store had to work straight out of the
box without any kind of interaction with any kind of an external service. Even
my bank would be barred from the App Store since I actually need to get in my
car and drive to the bank in order to have an account for the damn thing.

Rival bank's application doesn't even allow you to login even if you have an
account if you have not logged into that account at the bank's website at
least once. So much for working out of the box.

Banking apps do not have an exception in the App Store Review Guidelines, so I
don't really understand why they're getting off so easily.

------
outworlder
EDIT: I'm retracting my statement. This is how things used to work. I don't
see any changes to the policy. Yet, the app is still not getting approved. And
it is not taking users to its own payment portal.

So I got no clue WTF is going on.

> In rejecting Hey's appeal, Apple notes that the developers could work within
> Apple's rules by allowing the app to function as a reader for standard
> e-mail, while also offering Hey subscriptions from its Web site.
> Alternatively, it says Hey can add an in-app subscription option, sharing
> revenue on those purchased within the app while keeping all subscription
> revenue earned outside of Apple's ecosystem.

1) Don't handle payments inside the app at all, do everything payment-related
on the website.

2) Implement in app purchases

These are the options. "Hey" should pick one.

~~~
ChrisLTD
They already did #1. Apple is saying they have to do #2.

