
Apple rejects Hey for second time, threatens removal from App Store - tosh
https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272968382329942017
======
bradgessler
I’ve had apps get rejected because 4 levels deep inside the app, in the
support section, it launched an external browser to a support page that
incidentally had the generic website nav on it with a link to a pricing page.

Apple claimed that IaP was being circumvented.

This is just absurd. No serious SaaS company is going to run their users
through some crazy 12-tap flow that sends people through their support pages
to “cheat” Apple and signup for a paid plan. What would the conversion rate be
for a flow like that? 0.00000000002%?

If a developer flagrantly violates the policy by implementing their own signup
and payment collection on the first screens, we could all empathize a bit more
with Apple’s position. Instead Apple chooses to throw the book at people for
immaterial “violations”, without any regard to developers who are trying to
participate in good faith.

On top of that, it seems to happen at random because years of App Store
reviews could go by before a reviewer stumbles into the support link that’s
been buried deep in the app for 3 years. Boom, there’s your conversion event
that gets you to 0.00000000002%.

Basically Apple is enforcing the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law.

------
ogre_codes
I get the feeling we're only seeing half the story here. Apple allows a lot of
apps which have outside subscriptions, Basecamp is a perfect example. Also,
Netflix and Amazon Prime for a long time. The outside subscription requirement
is probably not the issue here.

I'm not advocating for Apple here, this particular post just strikes me as
being an odd exception.

Just a wild guess here, but it's likely they have some language like "Click
here to subscribe" which sends users to an outside link. That is expressly
forbidden.

UPDATE: The MacRumors story is more coherent and perhaps has a clue to why the
app got rejected: [https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/16/apple-threatens-to-
remo...](https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/16/apple-threatens-to-remove-hey-
from-app-store/)

Maybe their odd "Help Me" page is shooting them in the foot. by comparison,
Fastmail has a simple "Can't Log In" button which takes you to the Fastmail
support page on lost passwords.

~~~
boudin
We got a really similar issue. Apple rules are that every app with
subscription should use apple pay. They added an exception for content
streaming app though (so netflix, spotify, etc...) In our case (a small
companion app to a web app which is the core of the service) they started
rejecting everything saying we had to change our business model to have our
customers using apple pay from now on. After finally being able to have more
information other than "change your business model", they finally told us
that, unless the user of the ios app is not the person who's supposed to pay,
you have to go through apple pay and pay the apple tax. In our case we had
several plans, the cheapest being mono-user. In this case the user is always
the customer as well indeed. The solution was in our case to prevent users on
our cheapest plan to use the ios app. Not that it's a great solution...
Another one we thought was to always offer at least 2 user accounts but the
impact on our plans was too problematic.

~~~
cercatrova
Could you also increase the iOS subscription price by 30 percent? Then people
who want it on iOS primarily will use the in app subscription. However, those
who know about the web version will buy on the website and still be able to
log into iOS.

~~~
bradgessler
You can’t. It’s against App Store policies.

Here’s where bathing s get annoying though; companies do this all the time.
Microsoft Office , for example, has over 5 different pricing tiers for Office.
They have a consumer pricing tier that matches Apple IaP pricing, then a set
of a bunch of business, education, and enterprise plans. You’d have to do
something like that and then negotiate with them that one of your tiers is the
same price as IaP.

The point isn’t that there’s workarounds; what’s problematic is how Apple
tries to tell you how to price your product and run your business, even if you
try to give them a cut.

~~~
cercatrova
You can actually charge different prices for in app versus out of app. Apple
changed this policy around 9 years ago.

~~~
Hamuko
Yeah, I think the sticking point in the different prices is that you cannot in
any way indicate to the user that they can get the same service for cheaper or
that there's an included Apple tax. This means that Hey would need to be
charging $142 on iOS without a mention that $43 is an Apple tax that is not
present when signing up on Hey.com.

~~~
bradgessler
$141.99 and $42.99. Apple won’t let you charge round numbers.

------
petey283
Looks like Hey is complying with all Apple's requirements and yet Apple is
still rent-seeking. Not a good look for Apple.

~~~
threeseed
No they aren't. This is just a rehash of every App Store for the last decade.

App Store is a distribution channel. And just like Best Buy wouldn't tolerate
you bypassing their cut neither does Apple.

~~~
riotnrrd
The Netflix app doesn't require you to use Apple Pay. Why should Hey be
treated differently?

~~~
ruffrey
Are you able to manage your subscription in the Netflix app, though?

~~~
mkolodny
Great question/point! I had to check - tapping "Account" in the app brings you
to the Netflix website.

------
nickpp
Wonder if they could simply offer it for purchase in AppStore, at a 30%
markup, clearly presented as “Apple’s cut”.

Users can then choose where to buy and they will obey the rules...

~~~
berkes
How would that work with an annual subscription, though?

Or do you mean that they have the in-app purchase of that subscription and
then, instead of asking $99 they'd ask

    
    
      $99.00 Subscription + $29.70 Apple Fees = $128.70
    

That would be clear and transparent, indeed. But it is also a bit of a finger
to iOS users, though.

~~~
benhurmarcel
They can't show "Apple Fees" in the app, as per Apple's rules. They would only
be able to show the total.

In many cases it's not a great idea because it makes it look like your product
is a lot more expensive than it is, and the customer has no idea there's a way
to get a better price. It happened to me with Youtube Premium, I thought it
was expensive at €16 (instead of €12 in reality), and only found out by chance
it was the iOS pricing.

~~~
deltron3030
>and the customer has no idea there's a way to get a better price.

Wouldn't you look for more information outside the appstore before you buy
into a subscription? I mean if you do that you should stumble upon the actual
price and maybe an explanation for the higher price in the appstore.

It's less a problem for Basecamp than for Spotify, who have a more mainstream
product and audience.

~~~
jankassens
Unclear to me, but this might disallow a higher price for Apple in-app
purchases:

> 3.1.3(b) [...] 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.

from [https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/#mul...](https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/#multiplatform-services)

~~~
deltron3030
They could just price it atronomically high in the app, like a bug, which will
trigger people to reach out to others or investigate.

~~~
gruez
I don't think this type of clever lawyering is going to work when you're
against a corporation that rules with an iron fist.

------
Denvercoder9
It's time for an anti-trust action against Apple.

~~~
Rudism
While I agree that Apple's app store extortion policies are abhorrent, I don't
know if I agree that legal action is the answer. Isn't it Apple's right to set
whatever policies they want on their own platform? Isn't the answer to this
problem just to stop using Apple products and move to platforms that are more
open and not as hostile to consumers and developers? By using iPhones and Macs
you're implicitly agreeing to and giving financial credence to Apple's
practices. There are plenty of alternatives to Apple out there, and if Apple
somehow provides enough value to you to make them more appealing despite their
App Store strangleholds and anti-consumer policies, then haven't they earned
that right?

~~~
piva00
Anti-trust laws are built exactly for the cases where it is not easy or
feasibly possible to move to a different platform because the platform itself
is too large of a market for others to sideline it if they get abusive. It's
exactly designed and thought of to protect people (and smaller companies) from
the power that a single entity might have over them.

How can you say that, realistically, the way forward for a company is to just
drop one of the largest computing environments (iOS/App Store), even if a
company would prefer to do that they can't because that would hurt their
shareholders. If a smaller company then you are ostracised to a smaller market
because of a bully company.

Yeah, Apple may start to bleed developers the more they start to be bullish
but that doesn't mean they will lose users, and users attract developers. It's
the same case as Uber: you encroach the base your business model depends on
(driver/developer) into your influence while holding the bag that are their
customers (riders/app users) and start to bleed them out slowly, upping the
fees, adding more requirements for them to be allowed inside your walls, etc.,
until the breaking point, then recede a bit. Rinse and repeat.

Anti-trust exists to tame this, it's time for Apple to be challenged on their
free reign.

------
Despegar
There's basically nothing new here that couldn't have also been said on day
one of the App Store in 2008. It's just the standard App Store grievance
regurgitated to market their new product.

~~~
kodablah
It appears that before you could have a subscription outside the store. Now
you cannot, and Apple picks and chooses favorites (e.g. Basecamp and Netflix
can have out-of-store subscriptions, but this new app cannot).

~~~
petercooper
You can, you just have to offer it in app _as well_. Also, check the Netflix
page on the App Store, it now has in-app subscription options too.

~~~
ceejayoz
[https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/28/18159373/netflix-in-
app-...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/28/18159373/netflix-in-app-
subscriptions-iphone-ipad-ios-apple)

> Netflix is no longer allowing new customers on iOS to pay for the streaming
> service directly through an in-app subscription. It’s the latest example of
> a company with a high-profile, essential mobile app ditching Apple’s payment
> system to retain more profits for itself and stop handing the iPhone and
> iPad maker a cut of every subscription activated within the Netflix app.
> VentureBeat first reported the change, which Netflix confirmed with a short
> “we no longer support iTunes as a method of payment for new members”
> statement.

My Netflix's "account" section has nothing but a notice that says "Please go
to Netflix on the web to manage your account."

~~~
corkmask
our app is doing the exact same thing yet we got a rejection

------
brightball
Does Apple get a cut of revenue from Gmail? Protonmail? Fastmail?

Why would Hey be any different here?

~~~
Hamuko
> _Does Apple get a cut of revenue from Gmail?_

No.

~~~
buzzerbetrayed
Pretty sure it was a rhetorical question to prove a point

------
harrisonjackson
We had an app rejected for this yesterday (June 16). We've skirted the
guidelines in the past by carefully not mentioning any type of external
payment system or subscription offering at all within the app. Users had to
subscribe on a website for app content. Previously this was fine.

AFAIK you weren't required to implement in-app purchases for each subscription
offering available outside of the app. That seems to be the change to the
guideline or something that is now being enforced that was always there. This
is a non-trivial integration to build and maintain. Not only will this have a
real cost in engineering hours but the 30% fee is absurd - made more so by the
fact that you cannot even inform your customers of the option to subscribe out
of the app. I'd happily enable in-app purchases and increase the price 30%
with help text that says "Want to save 30% - subscribe on the website HERE"

Netflix removed their in-app purchase options years ago. When you open the app
it says you have to sign up on the website and provides no content or other
utility without signing in. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

------
mperham
After a decade at 30%, maybe Apple should reduce the cut? Economies of scale
and all that...

~~~
threeseed
People really don't understand what that 30% is for. App Store is a "channel
to market".

So you're not paying for store hosting, payment features etc.

You're paying for access to tens of millions of willing buyers.

~~~
Hamuko
> _You 're paying for access to tens of millions of willing buyers._

With Apple marketing your competitor's apps even if a willing buyer is
specifically looking for your app by its exact name.

------
dariosalvi78
unsurprising. But the main problem, IMHO, is that there is a company that has
complete control of what apps can be installed on their phones. And those
phones are not used just by a few fanatics in very special contexts, they are
used by millions of (mostly unaware) people. This is the root issue, and it's
completely unacceptable.

~~~
dan-robertson
I’m not convinced this is the problem. The problem is that there is a conflict
of interest between trying to ensure that only “high quality” apps are
available and trying to tax the value people get from the apps. If I imagine a
world where eg Apple get none of the in app purchase but some government get
30% as VAT then it still seems fine for Apple to curate their store but they
wouldn’t be incentivised to try to force apps to offer in-app purchases

~~~
dariosalvi78
I think that the high fees are shameful by themselves, but it's a different
matter. The problem I am discussing is about control, freedom and anti-
competitive behaviours.

I'll give an example I have lived myself: I developed a free app that was
requested by some doctors to help them cope with the pandemic. The app was
first rejected because "too simple". I appealed and they accepted it. Happy
ending.

Now, the episode in itself doesn't tell anything, but it made me think: what
if they kept rejecting it? What power did I have? Why should patients be
denied that piece of software on THEIR phones, because a company decides that
it's not cool enough? The problem lies with Google as well but, at least, it
is possible to distribute apps through other channels on their phones.

I really think that there is no excuse for Apple: their devices are locked,
their users are stuck with what the company decides to do with them and
treated like idiots. They are a threat to business and innovation (unless it's
theirs of course). Reminds me of Microsoft in the 90s...

------
pier25
They could simply solve this with a PWA, no?

They already have a web client which is all server rendered with Rails and
uses Turbolinks. If I'm not mistaken they also use this approach for the
Basecamp iOS app [1].

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWEts0rlezA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWEts0rlezA)

~~~
paulgb
iOS remains a holdout on the Push Notifications API, which is pretty important
for an email app.

[https://caniuse.com/#feat=push-api](https://caniuse.com/#feat=push-api)

~~~
wayneftw
I was wondering... Can there be a native app on iOS that sets up notifications
for all participating PWAs and then when a notification comes in, when the
user views it - the native app simply launches the URL of the PWA?

It could be called "Web Events Notifier" or something. Perhaps it could
include a UI for managing which PWAs you want to receive notifications for and
maybe even a catalog of publicly participating PWAs.

~~~
perryizgr8
That would work great until Apple rejects it. You cannot get around Apple's
intentions with technical loopholes.

~~~
wayneftw
Yeah I'm just wondering - on what grounds would they reject it?

I don't see any TOS that would forbid it.

------
Axsuul
I can understand dhh's frustrations. Apple should really only deserve the 30%
if they referred users to HEY via the App Store. Outside of that is just
unfair and predatory.

This is similar to what Wix requires when you develop for their platform. Wix
requires developers to profit share 20% of your revenue for any customers that
just so happen to use the part of your app that communicates with Wix. Why do
platforms continue to think they're entitled to such a thing? And why would
any developer want to integrate with Wix with such a clause?

~~~
kennywinker
> Apple should really only deserve the 30% if they referred users to HEY via
> the App Store

Might be true that they deserve a cut if the app store wasn’t a monopoly.
You’re not opting into a relationship with apple, they’re holding everybody
with an iPhone hostage for 30% of your revenue.

~~~
threeseed
Curious if you have the same outrage for Xbox or Playstation.

~~~
kennywinker
I mean the situation is similar, but I don’t really feel strongly because:

1\. I don’t game

2\. consequently games seem less important to quality-of-life than phones do
to me

3\. The ecosystem of “things i can play a game on” is pretty diverse. Xbox and
ps are big players but pc gaming is WIDE open and then there’s mobile gaming
as well.

------
minimaxir
The Tweet replies are helpful, noting that paid accounts are typically set up
outside the app to mitigate this issue.

~~~
sleepyhead
That is what they are doing.

~~~
eightysixfour
But they also don’t allow you to sign-up for a free tier in the app, which as
far as I know, is also against the rules. My understanding is that if someone
downloads the app from the store and can’t do anything but see a login page,
it is a violation.

~~~
pier25
Unless they've recently changed the rules, it's not a violation.

I've had a couple of apps in the iOS and macOS stores that couldn't be
accessed unless you paid for a service outside the app.

In fact, when submitting an app for review you can provide a user and password
so that Apple can log in and test the private app.

~~~
httpsterio
Sure, you can give them an account but it is in fact against the Apple TOS and
users shouldn't be able to see and download apps on the store they can't use.
They don't catch all the caws but they're still in breach. Apple has other
ways of distributing apps if they're internal apps or if the business manages
the users somewhere else and the app store shouldn't be used then.

~~~
pier25
I can 100% assure you these apps were not in breach and it was no fluke. Apple
questioned us multiple times about where and how would users pay for the
service.

I think this was allowed because as someone else mentioned there are some
exceptions to this rule. This was an education app which gave access to some
digital books.

------
ProAm
Twitter is such a horrible medium for a post/rant like this.

------
latexr
> When he tweeted about the app's initial rejection last week, he got a number
> of responses from developers who would privately rail against Apple's
> policies but publicly make excuses for the company. "You listen to some of
> these app developers, and they sound like hostages," Heinemeier Hansson
> said. "They sound like they're reading a prepared statement, because
> otherwise Apple could hurt their business. Which is true!"

~~~
rckoepke
I'd love to see these kinds of comments eventually start evolving into more
substantive discussion on HN. Sometimes its nice to see select quotes form the
article which helps me decide whether to click through and read it. But a lot
of the time, like this one, it doesn't add any clarity and I have no idea what
'latexr is actually thinking regarding the topic.

Personally, I've always felt that 30% was far, far too high for an app store.
It's clearly a case of captive markets. I remember being just as annoyed 17
years ago in high school; upperclassmen were allowed to leave school during
lunch and go to Little Caesars and get a whole pepperoni pizza for $5.
Lowerclassmen were not allowed to leave school for lunch and had to buy food
in the cafeteria where a single slice of pizza was $4.50 --- it was clearly
predatory pricing. I personally went out, got a $5 large pizza with 8 slices,
sold 4 slices at $1 each to classmates and enjoyed my half pizza for $1 every
day. But it was a pretty infuriating situation to me, as the students
themselves had no choice or control over the market, despite deploying a huge
amount of economic purchasing power every day.

I don't think the app store itself is adding that much value (30%). I believe
Apple's practices are probably currently legal (at least according to my lay
interpretation of monopoly practices) - Apple simply doesn't have a monopoly
on the market of phone apps when you consider that consumers can choose to
switch to Android. Hey! can access 120 million Americans through android
and/or 100 million Americans through iOS. If apple cuts them out of 45% of the
market, they still have 55% remaining to access. They can even still just have
their users go to their website to read email via the Safari browser.

Obviously the U.S. Government (various branches) occasionally change how they
feel about things even without any substantive changes in statutory or
constitutional law. So I make no predictions at all as to what happens in the
next 5 years.

However, I can say what I'd like to see to improve innovation in Silicon
Valley (and I would LOVE feedback on this idea, to improve it and help to make
the idea better)

Primarily I'd like to see any internal API's that are used between business
segments to be granted the same access at the same cost to third parties. For
example:

\- Google's "Popular Times" feature comes from Google Places (I think) and is
used by Google Maps. However, third parties still have no access to this.

\- iOS messaging could be accessible by XMPP or similar open protocols, same
with Discord, Microsoft Teams, Skype for Business, etc.

\- Instagram live broadcasts could be searched and accessed by API

etc etc.

I don't personally think there's a legal basis for compelling this right now,
but statutory changes that promote something LIKE it would really be amazing
for innovation. Letting _small companies_ compete with _small pieces_ of large
companies would give consumers access to high quality alternatives for every
service they need. I think it would also make the web more "hackable"
(extensible) by teens and hobbyists, and likely propel our field forward
immensely.

The walled gardens can be great options for convenient security (Apple's doing
fairly well here honestly, even if not fantastically). But I'd like consumers
to be able to access the data however is most convenient for them.

~~~
latexr
I haven’t read your post in full. To your first paragraph, check my history
and you’ll be hard pressed to find another example of this. The quote was
posted to another HN thread that has since been merged into this one where the
conversation was already underway. In the other thread I hoped to have gotten
some commentary to start a discussion; in this one I wouldn’t have made it in
the first place because by the the time it was moved it added nothing.

~~~
rckoepke
I completely understand, I first replied to you when we were the only comments
before the move, I was also hoping to start discussion.

I've made extremely similar comments as this one of yours, very recently:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23179393](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23179393)
and much to my (chagrin/horror/disgust), it's my highest rated comment ever. I
wish upvotes were more correlated to effort and quality, but I always remember
Wynton Marsalis saying in an interview: .

> In high school, I learned a breathing technique so I could play a continuous
> trumpet solo for 10 minutes without stopping for a breath. But my father
> told me, “Son, those who play for applause, thatʼs all they get.”

------
patman81
I was excited about WWDC next week. After reading about this, I just feel
bitter about it.

------
stunt
For Apple the math is simple. We should take "apple-tax" as much as we can,
for as long as we can. It's a lot of money and it doesn't make sense for them
to give it away until they have to. Nobody knows if they will remain dominant
10 years from now. So there is no point to be nice today when you have a
monopoly.

Then there are some services with enough leverage that it makes sense for
Apple not ask them for Apple Tax. It also saves more time for Apple to keep
taking this tax from others that don't have leverage to fight back.

------
askjdlkasdjsd
It's really disheartening that when you don't even have any twitter/blog
following, stuff like this happens to thousands of people and nobody ever
hears about them.

------
vit05
I've been following the tweets about hey.com from their founder for some time.
The text about how they bought the domain is beautiful. I understand the
proposal they offer about the service, and the reason for charging for a
service that nobody has paid for a long time. It even seems obvious to me this
trend of new opportunities to pay for email services. A trend, that this time,
appears to be here to stay.

But it is a product that have a very aggressive marketing strategy. Arrogant.

The only thing I read from this episode is: The product is like this, the
billing service is like that. We won't change anything and if you don't like
it, you're wrong. Unfortunately, there is no chance that I will ever use this
product. The price is stratospheric for me and probably for 98% of those who
use gmail. Prontonmail, for example, offers several options, including a free
one.

Well, apple also offers a service. What they are asking is for them to make a
concession. But they don't seem willing to concede anything to that
negotiation.

I imagine that this could be circumvented with other exclusive plans to
subscribe using apple pay, or a free and very reduced version. It doesn't seem
like a radical position from apple, which was the impression I got from
reading the tweets alone.

~~~
LyndsySimon
> The price is stratospheric for me and probably for 98% of those who use
> gmail.

Well, Gmail appears to have about 1.5 billion active users:
[https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/26/gmail-dominates-consumer-
ema...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/26/gmail-dominates-consumer-email-
with-1point5-billion-users.html)

2% of 1.5b is 30,000,000. I think Hey will be okay with only $2,970,000,000
per annum. :)

~~~
vit05
This is the potential market where all other paid email providers will
compete. A reduced market. And yet, they chose Elon Musk's strategy. Create a
premium product first to serve as a cash cow and financier, then perhaps offer
other products with lower or even higher margins.

But my point is, they offer a premium service and have the possibility to get
around this problem by negotiating since the mistake was theirs in not
interpreting apple rules correctly.

[1][https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-
plan-j...](https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-just-
between-you-and-
me#:~:text=The%20strategy%20of%20Tesla%20is,prices%20with%20each%20successive%20model).

------
surfpel
Looks like they’re not complying with the rules? Is there something more to
this?

~~~
sleepyhead
They are doing the same as Spotify and Netflix apps. Payment is done outside
the app.

~~~
Redoubts
You can also make in-app purchases there, if you choose to. You can't with
Hey.

~~~
dmitriid
You can't make in-app purchases in Spotify. Netflix got rid of in-app
purchases for a while, but then renegotiated a new deal with Apple. You can't
buy books in Kindle.

And the list goes on.

------
knolax
It's interesting that despite the fact that walled-garden platforms are
concrete examples of companies using their marketshare to rent seek and stifle
competition, the recent anti-trust investigations have been going after more
nebulously defined cases like Alphabet and Amazon.

EDIT: Of all the things that HN would consider controversial, I did not expect
an inane comment on walled gardens to be it.

~~~
mytailorisrich
I suspect that this is because Amazon and Alphabet have an overwhelming market
share while Apple hasn't.

~~~
berkes
I thought iPhones had a significant majority of the smartphone market in the
US.

~~~
mytailorisrich
As a single brand they have the largest share at about 40%. But in terms of
platform they are on par, or slightly behind, Android. On mobile devices
overall they are ahead but not that much.

This is in contrast to Alphabet and Amazon which have much stronger dominant
positions and don't have comparable competitors.

------
claytongulick
This is one of the reasons why companies are so interested in the PWA/web app
approach.

------
whycombagator
It’s hard for me to discern if they actually broke one of Apples rules or not.

What I can’t seem to ignore is just how worked up DHH seems to get on Twitter
sometimes.

This thread is 20 tweets in a row, not including his replies. To be fair, it
is less profane and numerous than the Apple Card one[0]

[0]
[https://mobile.twitter.com/dhh/status/1192540900393705474](https://mobile.twitter.com/dhh/status/1192540900393705474)

------
thefounder
It seems to me thay the AppStore works as intended so it should be resolved
with "won't fix".

------
mistersquid
It would be hard to argue--given this presentation of Basecamp's plight--that
Apple's behavior here is not rent-seeking. Combined with Apple's massive
earnings and cash holdings, this is not a good look for Apple.

~~~
spoopyskelly
Apple takes a cut of the sales you make in their store, like any other such
platform.

~~~
crispyporkbites
They are in a duopoly with Google though- if Apple increases their tax to 35%
tomorrow, what happens? What if they increase it to 50%?

What if they say you can’t have a web app, you can only have an iOS and
Android app?

What if they say they no competing services are allowed, so every iCloud,
Apple news, weather etc. competitor is gone?

------
cavisne
its kindof hilarious that apple happened to pick this app to make a stand on.
It was only a few months ago that DHH (the Hey founder) got apple to change
(or at least clarify and apologize for ) their Apple Card application process
because his wife got a smaller limit than him.

------
AnonC
As much as I despise Apple’s arbitrary distinctions between apps and the
subscription purchase mechanisms (as well as the comparatively stricter
control it has on apps on the App Store), the Twitter thread is deviating from
the key points and making comparisons (and using ad hominems) that sound very
nasty. I get that DHH is fuming, and feels rightfully so, but this is a crude
business transaction disagreement. He’s no common person on the streets, and
it would help for him to rethink some of the words and comparisons he uses in
public.

On the whole, I’m kinda glad on the timing of this one. One can only hope that
this brings in some positive changes from Apple within a few months. It’s long
due.

------
peace2all
Maybe because Hey/Basecamp decided to target Apple's email platform on Hey's
home page as the cause of all Inbox woes?

Maybe before you go griping about technical details in Apple's App Store
rules, Hey/Basecamp should have considered not blaspheming (unfairly) Apple's
Email platform (among others) on their home page:

> "You started getting stuff you didn’t want from people you didn’t know. You
> lost control over who could reach you. An avalanche of automated emails
> cluttered everything up.

And Gmail, Outlook, Yahoo, and Apple just let it happen."

Pretty snarky of Jason Fried & Co. to accuse Apple of being the reason I lost
control of my Inbox, and then beg and cajole Apple to let them have their Hey
App on iOS without allowing a signup option via Apple's massive eco-system.

Typical Small Dev Thinking. "Hey is different and Apple is Evil and We have
Single-handedly solved all the problems that Apple created! Oh, by the way,
can we please be in the App Store so we can have access to Apple's bajillions
of customers and $$$ so we can make a few $100k because the economy is
tanking?".

Worse of all? Hey lied. Through the teeth.

Nearly all of their Top 20 "features" have been available via Apple's Email
service for years, and in some cases decades, and most are also available via
other email services like Gmail.

[https://mrtechimist.wordpress.com/2020/06/16/apples-email-
an...](https://mrtechimist.wordpress.com/2020/06/16/apples-email-and-
basecamps-new-hey-emails-top-20-features/)

This is probably the lowest skullduggery that Fried & Co have attempted to
foist on the unsuspecting public. I'm personally surprised and have always
been a fan of their work. Don't know what's going on under the covers over
there, but it can't be good.

~~~
harg
I’m not sure that Apple denying an app into its App Store because that company
criticised Apple on one of its marketing pages is justified.

~~~
peace2all
It’s not “justified”. I’m merely pointing out (a) hypocrisy by BaseCamp (and
subsequent marketing lies), and (b) the old adage that you don’t bite the hand
that feeds you.

It might be nice to believe you can snip at a company’s products (and in this
case, using false claims), and believe it won’t affect at all a separate issue
(App Store submissions), but that’s not the real world.

Sometimes, you attract attention by antics. Maybe Fried and Co. are learning a
small lesson about the real world.

Aside from all that, this whining about how Apple is keeping them from profits
is a bit nauseating. Their sad product (Hey) is keeping them from profits.

------
blickentwapft
Feels like DHH manufacturing controversy.

Deliberately break rules so Apple rejects their code.

So it’s a marketing stunt designed to get a product into the front page of
Hacker News.

But that would never happen of course... HEY!!

Do you really think DHH is surprised by the commission rules at Apple? Do you
really think said bugs aren’t deliberate?

DHH is playing everyone folks. But he certainly has an army of fanboys here
who downvote all the threads suggesting this is a marketing stunt.

Fake news in the truest sense.

~~~
sbuk
It's straight out of the Jobs playbook; "Pick a fight..."

~~~
blickentwapft
DHH has _literally_ articulated this as a marketing strategy in the past.

~~~
sbuk
Yes. I know. He has _literally_ articulated the fact that is straight out of
Jobs’ playbook to. It’s _ironic_ that Apple find themselves on the receiving
end! And just too.

------
traceroute66
I don't get the anti-Apple here. The email from Apple posted on Twitter says
quite clearly that people can acquire content and subscriptions elsewhere as
long as the app continues to offer an in-app purchase option. I don't see the
problem here, give people the choice.

~~~
rubicon33
The anti-apple thing here is, you can't link out to your website for payment.

You literally cannot even inform the user that there is another way for them
to pay.

This is shitty. Apple benefits from developers making great apps on their
platform, just as developers benefit from being on their platform. It's a
symbiotic relationship, but Apple takes up to 30% of your profit which does
not feel respectful of what developers are bringing to the table, which is
often Apple first, quality apps.

~~~
illuminated
This is not totally true.

If you're using, say, Stripe for your payment processing then you can offer
the user a choice if they'd pay through Stripe or Apple pay. If you do not
have your own payment processor for mobile payments, then you use only Apple
pay. If you do, then you have to include Apple as an option.

I've been releasing apps with this in the past few years, it's been a
requirement all along.

~~~
rubicon33
It is totally true for the context of this conversation... Which is, software
subscriptions.

No, you cannot use Stripe for software subscriptions. Stripe (non-Apple pay)
can only be used for physical goods, or sale of services rendered outside of
iOS/MacOS.

In other words, can only be used for non-digital sales. The context of this
conversation is the Hey app, which is a software subscription, so no... there
is no other way to pay.

~~~
illuminated
Yes, I have just figured that out. My experience was for the goods/services
delivered outside the app.

------
adrianmsmith
Maybe they deliberately provoked Apple, so they'd get rejected, so they could
write about their outrage, so it'd get picked up by news sites, and they did
this for marketing purposes?

Or maybe it really was just accidental, who knows. But it is certainly having
that effect, intended or not.

~~~
dopamean
This is a weird accusation to make

~~~
cdolan
I don’t think its that strange of an “accusation”. In fact I’d call it a
“hypothesis”.

DHH is a popular person. He gets people to change their behaviors when he
calls them out (see his prior Twitter rants, I can’t recall any examples other
than Zoom, etc). DHH even admits that he is popular and may be able to get the
rules changed for himself, which is probably a big reason he is being vocal -
small developers do not have the same platform as a Formula 1 hundred-
millionaire who also created RoR.

~~~
saagarjha
He might be a vocal person online, but I think accusing him of purposefully
sabotaging his app's approval process without supporting it with evidence is
reaching a bit.

~~~
phaedryx
Agreed. Certainly fails the Occam's razor test for me.

------
Animats
What does "Hey" do? Is it like "Yo"?[1]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_%28app%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_%28app%29)

~~~
camel_Snake
It's an email client, with a focus on workflows.

~~~
frizkie
It's not just a client, they provide the email service itself.

------
cryptica
I still don't understand why people like Apple products so much.

I was forced to use a MacBook at my last job for 2 years because the CEO was a
Steve Jobs fan. It's a terrible machine. If I had to summarize Apple with just
one word, it would be "restrictive". It's like you need a license to do
anything, run any program, write any program. It's like you don't even own the
damn machine, it owns you.

I understand why some developers may want to stay away from Windows but Apple
is not the answer. Linux distros are really quite good these days. I highly
recommend the new version of Kubuntu v20.

The defaults are kind of ugly (no idea why they would do that to themselves)
but you can customize the theme and it can look amazing. Ubuntu is not bad but
Kubuntu was an eye-opener for me in terms of usability and customizability.

~~~
monkin
> I still don't understand why people like Apple products so much.

That’s very simple. Most of users aren’t professionals and want platform that
works out-of-the-box. They don’t customize. They don’t change anything. They
don’t want or know how to side-load an app... they are just normal users which
are majority of Apple clients. :)

Why so many people have a problem with understanding that professional users
(developers, designers, etc) aren’t most important, or even better, the only
one using Apple hardware?

BTW. And with those users in mind I would love to have more walled gardens
everywhere. As they don’t care about their tech-savvy part of life, approach
like this can minimize their lost from stupid actions.

~~~
emilsedgh
I don't have much of a Mac experience but Linux distro's nowadays are far, far
more "just working" than windows, even and specially on their default setups.

At least that's my personal experience.

