
Apple’s Rejection of Hey from the App Store for Not Using In-App Purchases - gustavo_f
https://daringfireball.net/2020/06/hey_app_store_rejection_flimsiness?df
======
sudhirj
This is a case of something being reasonable under initial conditions, but
failing to evolve over time.

If you remember the first versions of the App Store, most of the apps were
hosted and delivered by Apple, and the in app purchases were also hosted,
secured and delivered by Apple. You just uploaded the content and had zero
cost from that point on - like writing a book and giving it to a publisher.
There the 30% cut made sense. If I sleep on the beach all day and receive 70%
royalties for my stuff without having to do any other work, great. Sounds
reasonable.

Not so if I’m running a service or a backend for the app I’m selling. If I’m
selling consultations, or running perpetual servers or jobs or bandwidth for
each new sale, there’s absolutely no way 30% is a sensible cut, because the
value is not being provided by Apple the publisher.

Apple has failed to make this distinction, and the more they dig their heels
in and refuse to, the bigger the fall is going to be.

~~~
oliwarner
Beside security and delivery, there's also marketing, exposure and integration
features.

I don't disagree with you, but you do have to draw a line somewhere, or every
traditionally paid-for app will convert to external registration. Why wouldn't
they? It's free money. Still, it's hard to ignore the hypocrisy of allowing
Dropbox, Netflix, Kindle, etc without a pathway for sub-billion-dollar
companies to follow in their footsteps.

How about a model where the developer pays per logged in user? You'd still
have to shake out how much Apple "deserved" for its part in the transaction,
eg do subscription apps and top ups get warrant more money?

Edit: Didn't expect to be downvoted, just trying to find models that work for
everybody.

~~~
sudhirj
The initial model itself started off pretty clear. Where the in app purchase
is secured and delivered purely by Apple, it’s acting as a publisher. This is
the unlock special functions in the calculator type purchase, or buy a book
where the package is hosted in Apple infra itself. Here is the app has no
backend, and Apple is a publisher. 30% is fine.

In the scenarios where a user is paying for something that is delivered or
executed by the app developer’s infrastructure, _digital or not_ , Apple is a
payment gateway, not a publisher. They can either match Stripe or go to
Paddle’s rate of 5% because they handle taxes and VAT etc. But either way they
are and should act as payment gateway and merchant of record, not publisher.

This distinction already exists for on digital goods. No one expects to pay
30% when selling food or groceries, for example. But digital services are the
same thing.

~~~
Despegar
>In the scenarios where a user is paying for something that is delivered or
executed by the app developer’s infrastructure, digital or not, Apple is a
payment gateway, not a publisher. They can either match Stripe or go to
Paddle’s rate of 5% because they handle taxes and VAT etc. But either way they
are and should act as payment gateway and merchant of record, not publisher.

Your product and associated costs might have changed, but your relationship
with Apple hasn't. You aren't paying them for payment processing, you're
paying for access to the user base that is magnitudes bigger than when the App
Store launched.

~~~
sudhirj
So that’s the crux of the issue, but I don’t see how it’ll stand because maybe
Apple is paying me to make apps that make their platform popular.

And the distinction is even weirder for hardware - this is like Tesla allowing
you to only carry passengers that also own Teslas or pay Musk a fee.

If a store is a enforced monopoly, then it seems like there’s a moral and
ethical requirement for it to operate at cost / not for profit. If the
government required you to file all your taxes on a portal with a fee, for
example, this fee would have to be not for profit to be ethical and moral.

I don’t think Apple is stuck on these grounds, because Spotify and Netflix are
on the App Store and don’t pay 30%. They need to formalise the rules under
which these apps exist, and let others freely exist under those rules as well.

~~~
Despegar
This isn't that complicated. Apple is free to operate a closed system, just
like the video game consoles.

I don't understand how the comparison to government makes any sense. This is a
private business and you want to sell on their marketplace. You agreed to
their terms in order to do so. If those terms suck you can avoid the platform
altogether, as many people do.

~~~
wayneftw
When you reach essential product status, this is no longer similar to video
game console.

This is more like, back when Ma Bell made you pay rent to use a handset and
there was no way that you could own one.

If enough people/companies don’t like the situation we can change it. If
there’s no law to make things happen the way we want, we’ll make one.

~~~
Abhinav2000
This is 100% correct

------
jakozaur
The current internet giants got huge monopolistic like power that many
dictators of many countries would envy. The set their rules, execute them, and
judge them.

The platform is essentially a boundled product. E.g. Apple can hurt Spotify or
bully to 30% fee, using rejections so their inferior service can be more
competitive.

Once you get monopolistic network effort your platform needs to be an utility.
Imagine electric or water company refusing to sell you services or increasing
price way beyond the costs.

I believe once you become a platform there should be an independent nano-
courthouse where you can appeal. Today being rejected or having listing
hijacked on Apple, Amazon, or Google platform is equivalent to the economical
death penalty for many businesses.

It should be possible to pay $100 by individuals or $1000 by businesses and
appeal to an independent nano-courthouse if the original platform rejects or
blocks you. If you win, the appeal fee is refunded and the platform has to
cover the cost. If you lose, your $100 or $1000 is gone.

~~~
grishka
IMO this problem calls for a technical solution, not an organizational one.

It should be required, by law, for platforms this widespread to allow
installing apps without platform owner involvement. Let there be many scary
warnings like there actually are on Android when you install an apk file, but
it has to be possible. It's the only way. Adding more bureaucracy on top of
existing bureaucracy won't help much because you'll still have to play by the
platform owners' arbitrary nonsense rules.

~~~
quantummkv
It is an organizational problem and not a technical one. These is zero
technical difficulty or challenge for Apple to allow sideloading. The have
done it on the mac. And google has it on android.

------
turblety
Apple's dictatorship program (the app store) is horrific. I strongly believe
if you buy a device, you should own that device and be in control of what you
put on that device. The fact Apple will not let you put anything on your phone
they don't approve of really troubles me. I worry for the future if more
companies take this approach.

Android is slightly better, since you can install alternative app stores, or
apps from websites.

~~~
fierarul
> I worry for the future if more companies take this approach.

That future is here. All macOS desktop apps must be signed with an $99
developer certificate from Apple. All Windows apps must be signed with a
$300-ish developer certificate otherwise Windows scare away 99% of users from
running the installer. I can't comment for Linux but I see snapcraft.io is
getting some pretty big usage numbers...

I really can't put what I want on my Android phone. I briefly read I need to
'unlock' my bootloader using some procedure which implies getting approval
from Xiaomi and/or doing a factory reset of my phone which means losing
everything. Seems designed to be as inconvenient as possible.

~~~
vntok
Where does your 99% number come from in "Windows scare away 99% of users from
running the installer"?

From what I've seen, on the contrary most non-tech users simply click on
"accept the risk" every single time there's one of those "scary" screens. They
just do, just like they bypass HTTPS warnings in browsers. After all, most
informed users us included do the same, maybe after a 5-10s pause in front of
the screen to read the company name.

The number of people "scared away" seems way less than 50%, and I'd imagine it
is probably around or even less than 15%.

~~~
tdeck
In this case the "accept the risk" button is hidden. Here's what the dialog
looks like in Windows 10:

[https://i.stack.imgur.com/bDj59.png](https://i.stack.imgur.com/bDj59.png)

Notice that "more info" in a slightly different shade is actually a link. When
you click it you get the option to bypass the security block.

------
hellofunk
Interesting that this rejection came out in the same week, maybe the same day,
as the EU opened its anti-trust investigations into the company. Obviously
there’s some smoke somewhere. I say this as someone who has exclusively used
Apple for over one decade. I am very very bothered by this monopolistic
evolution of the company.

~~~
SCdF
> exclusively used Apple for over one decade ... monopolistic evolution of the
> company.

Apple have been pulling this kind of thing for the entire lifetime of iOS at
least, which is now at ~15 years. So it's less of an evolution and more of a
constant.

Nothing has changed, nothing will change. Apple will make arbitrary and unfair
rules that suit it, and people will complain but ultimately stick with Apple,
and the cycle will repeat.

~~~
hellofunk
It has definitely been gradually getting worse. There’s no question about
that. Maybe some tendencies have always been there, but they’re being
manifested at a much more aggressive rate in very recent years.

~~~
SCdF
So this exact rule, that to charge money for your app or from your app you
_must_ give Apple a cut, has been there since 2011. This is not new, and apps
getting caught in this seem to bubble up every few months.

------
modeless
In 2007 Walt Mossberg wrote an article titled "Free My Phone" about cell
carriers' stranglehold over phone hardware and software. It's incredible how
many of the complaints in the article are relevant again today, with Apple
replacing the role of the carriers. I recommend giving it a read:
[http://mossblog.allthingsd.com/20071021/free-my-
phone/](http://mossblog.allthingsd.com/20071021/free-my-phone/)

~~~
sitkack
It is crazy that cell phone manufactures can dictate what run on user's
phones. It seems like some large percentage of business models and tactics is
to shake down the producers and the consumers.

------
laser
Apple shouldn't be able to get away with doing this. Full stop.

But from a pure business perspective, if they're charging on an annual basis,
if the average subscription length is say, 4 years, after the first year the
rate is 15% not 30%. Additionally, Apple pays all the transaction costs, which
on a $99 charge would be ~3.3%. That means if they go with Apple's system
they'll effectively pay 18.75% versus 3.3%. Do they really think they won't
achieve 19% [1] more subscriptions with a native signup flow and payment
option compared to only recruiting customers outside Apple's ecosystem? That's
what they need to break even on Apple's cut here. If they do think that, I'd
be tempted to claim they don't really understand the power of App Store
distribution.

[1] 96.7% revenue cut / 81.25% revenue cut

~~~
pankajdoharey
If you look at it Hey did not use in App Purchase, which is important from the
perspective of the user. If I purchase a subscription then I should be able to
unsubscribe the purchase of subscription from the app, also it is to make sure
the app doesn't continue to bill the user even if the subscription is
disabled. The app could be some remote offshore rogue company which continues
to charge you even when you disabled the subscription. Also it could go ahead
a charge for 12 month subscription when you only asked for 1. In app purchases
have to be controlled for better user experience and consumer protection.
There is a reason why there are tons of scam apps on Android but not on iOS.

~~~
Abhinav2000
This is seriously a very big point. Lot of companies (esp news sites) are
luring you in with free trials and hoping you forget and keep paying the
subscription costs. They make it hard for you to unsubscribe. Apple's approach
is very good and very consumer friendly.

Btw I researched the Hey App, it is such a scam app. Its basically a dumbified
e-mail service, that they are charging $99 per year, trying to create this
buzz from this marketing and having "exclusive beta keys" and then having lots
of fake reviews on their website and YouTube.

~~~
pankajdoharey
Absolutely.

------
on_and_off
Been there.

I worked for a music streaming company.

We never had any problem with Google (admittedly, Google does not care about
Google Music and does not know what to do with it, which is a shame) but oh
boy, getting an update to come out on iOS was a pretty big challenge.

We were sometimes even months without being able to push an update.

------
rydre
Boycott the WWDC 2020

Apple if it continues with the decision to be a rent seeking company, needs to
be investigated for anti trust AND criminal behavior. Including the executives
at Apple for making decisions in bad faith that stifle innovation just so
Apple can continue to be a rent seeker, hurting the development and progress
of the software ecosystem and wasting valuable time of the populace.

In the name of Jian Yang - Apple is a sad man. He is very fat.

~~~
power78
Why hasn't there been any resistance to Apple and the way they treat
developers? I see so many people complaining about very unfair treatment by
Apple on HN, but never anyone doing anything about it. I know it's likely
impossible to influence a company like Apple, but why don't people show their
disdain somehow?

~~~
quantummkv
The platform is completely locked down and the users are on the platform.
Unless you want to loose a big part of the market after Apple banned you for
dissenting, you keep quiet, look the other way and praise Apple and his
holiness the Jobs for your daily bread from the Apple kitchen.

------
throwaway23000
In times past when a platform didn't offer sufficient tools for developers to
reach users, the web stepped in to save the day & drive growth.

But... no accounting for Apple's practices here is complete without an
evaluation of how they have kept their thumb on the web on iOS - no other
engines, meaning they alone get to control what APIs are available to web
developers for a huge chunk of mobile computing.

------
niksmac
Remember the same issue raised by Spotify?

[https://www.idownloadblog.com/2019/03/14/spotify-sues-
apple-...](https://www.idownloadblog.com/2019/03/14/spotify-sues-apple-app-
store-fees/)

[https://www.apple.com/in/newsroom/2019/03/addressing-
spotify...](https://www.apple.com/in/newsroom/2019/03/addressing-spotifys-
claims/)

------
xlii
Previous discussions on topic:

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

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545211](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23545211)

------
sneak
I really think this is just a special case of the generally growing trend of
censorship being wielded by Google, Twitter, Facebook, and others.

It doesn’t matter if the censorship platforms have fair rules. The rules, one
day, will change. The one constant is that they can censor you at will.

It’s “their platform”, so even breaking their own rules, or applying them
inconsistently, is legal and permissible.

We as a society must build tools that do not support centralized censorship
control.

Imagine if cars came with gas cap DRM that only allowed fuel purchased from
one vendor...

------
causality0
I'm amazed Apple allows the Steam app, considering that too allows you to
access products and services that weren't purchased through Apple's walled
garden.

~~~
dindresto
Actually, Apple blocked the Steam remote play app because it just acted as a
remote desktop for Steam's Big Picture mode, which also allowed using the
store for making purchases. This was a thorn in Apple's eyes so Valve had to
ensure the shop was inaccessible when opening Big Picture mode through the iOS
/ iPadOS app.

Source:

\- [https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/24/17392470/apple-rejects-
va...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/24/17392470/apple-rejects-valve-steam-
link-app-store-ios-game-steaming)

\- [https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/5/17430532/apple-app-
store-r...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/5/17430532/apple-app-store-rules-
valve-steam-link-game-streaming)

~~~
causality0
I am amazed the EU hasn't jumped all over apple for that kind of shit.

------
leoncvlt
I met the same problems when trying to publish an app with purchasable
subscriptions on the store. Rejected at first, then I removed all mentions of
the subscription in the app and after pointing this out to the review team, it
got approved. The whole experience left me very frustrated.

Recently I pulled the app off the store altogether because I can't be asked to
deal with this things on every update.

I feel like a viable alternative would be to push for, and educate the end
users about progressive web apps. But then again, that might just be about
moving the monopoly from the app stores to the browser vendors, as in the end
it's them who have the last word about PWA compatibility. If I'm not wrong
lately Safari already made some changes to the storage policy that undermines
PWA capabilities.

------
codecamper
To heck with Apple.

How hard is it really to allow flutter apps to run on the Linux phone? If
Flutter could officially support WebAssembly, then all we'd need to do is
provide bindings into the hardware. This can't be so hard.

------
throwaway_mark2
I once saw an iOS app hit by this same IAP shakedown quite recently. The
developer, a friend of mine, had called me in an emergency to help expand his
backend for Apple payments. It almost felt like a protection racket run by
your friendly neighborhood Mobster.

The most egregious thing is that they don't inform you about this beforehand,
event when they could easily stop this on the first review. They will let you
on the store, get users, and then sneak up on you and hang your users over
your head to get you to comply.

I really hope dhh sticks to his guns and starts up a revolution against Apple.

~~~
rpy
Sounds like your friend should have read the App Store Review Guidelines, the
rules are all clearly stated and have been for so many years now that it
should come as a surprise to nobody doing business on iOS.

~~~
kjakm
I think this saga proves the rules are not clearly stated. The rules do not
make clear at any point that “reader” apps (however Apple chooses it will
define them today) and business focussed apps do not need to offer IAP. Apple
didn’t even make that clear in their rejection. It took a statement from them
to a blog to make it clear.

------
solarkraft
This has confused me for a long time: Isn't Apple deeply and illegally anti-
competitive? How many lawsuits have there been and why did they not succeeded
in opening them up? What can the EU do to fix it?

~~~
kalleboo
Probably because in the EU, Android has a dominant 70% market share, so the
typical anti-trust rulings don't apply.

The EU is investigating it now though
[https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/16/eu-opens-
investigations...](https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/16/eu-opens-
investigations-app-store-apple-pay/)

