
You download the app and it doesn’t work - DVassallo
https://youdownloadtheappanditdoesntwork.com
======
nodamage
While I agree that Apple should probably relax their rules, this list of
"exceptions" is not particularly compelling.

The majority of them are companion apps for physical products/memberships for
which the rules around in-app purchases do not apply: Tesla, Soho House, Wells
Fargo, Blue Cross / Blue Shield, WeWork.

Github has a free tier and doesn't require a paying membership to use.

Netflix is a digital content app for which there is a specific exemption under
rule 3.1.3(a).

Bloomberg and Salesforce might also fall under the 3.1.3(a) exemption for
"access to professional databases", I'm not sure.

App Store Connect is their own app. Apple's apps have always been able to use
private APIs and do other things the rest of us can't.

The only other app in this list that is actually similar to Hey in terms of
product type and monetization is Fastmail. (And it looks like Fastmail was
recently asked to add IAP to their app as well.)

The rules around in-app purchases have been well known for a long time (by iOS
devs at least, clearly not by the general public or even tech people).

Releasing an app that does not follow the rules and then publicly complaining
when it is inevitably rejected is starting to seem more like a guerrilla
marketing tactic more than anything else. (And a clever one too, I don't think
yet-another-email-app would have gotten nearly the same amount of press
coverage that this has.)

~~~
gruez
>While I agree that Apple should probably relax their rules, this list of
"exceptions" is not particularly compelling.

Yeah, the first few items on the list were relatively convincing, but the
convincing-ness takes a nosedive further down the list. I mean, who in their
right mind would compare hey to a companion app for a car?

~~~
SpaceRaccoon
It's not about that. It's about the VP's explanation being disingenuous.
Apple's issue isn't that the app doesn't work, despite their claim. It's that
they can't collect money. They should just be honest.

~~~
nodamage
I agree that's a crappy explanation by the VP but that's not the actual reason
for the rejection.

~~~
etse
I too think it’s a poor response from the head of the App Store but we
shouldn’t pretend to think we know the “actual” reason that much better
because we are given a link to the ever-changing App Store regulations
webpage.

~~~
nodamage
The actual reason is the app does not follow the rules for in-app purchases.
This hasn't really been in question. Anyone who has been an iOS dev for more
than a year or two will be familiar with the App Store review guidelines.

Are the rules overly restrictive? Yes. Due they place an unfair burden on
third party developers? Probably. But let's not pretend they are a mystery.

------
mikenew
I've been a freelance iOS app developer for almost a decade. Apple has
_always_ operated this way. They have rules that are somewhat vague, and they
choose when they want to enforce them and how they should be interpreted.

For example: you weren't allowed to show device bezels in app store
screenshots for a long time, even though all the major apps did exactly that.
If you were a small time developer though you would get rejected, sometimes,
with that cited as a reason. There's currently the same problems with asking
for app reviews. Everyone wants to filter users through the "do you like the
app? Yes/No" popups to try and make sure only good reviews get through. It's
explicitly stated in the app store guidelines that you have to use the system
provided prompt that doesn't allow for that, but it's only selectively
enforced. So if your competition is filtering reviews but you aren't allowed
to, you're at a huge disadvantage. And there's plenty of other ambiguous rules
like that. In app purchases being a major one. You could have your app on the
store for a year and then suddenly get a rejection notice on a bugfix update
that they don't like your payment setup.

Point is: Apple will do absolutely whatever they want, and you have zero
recourse. If you're a small developer it can kill you. Plenty of people will
say "just follow the rules and you won't have a problem", but the rules are
arbitrary and selectively enforced. For example, there was the Steam Link app
debacle that Apple decided to reject after it's big release, and they
literally just wrote new rules to exclude it[0]. And if they allowed
alternative app stores I think you could excuse a lot of it. But they don't.
And they never will unless they are forced to.

0: [https://www.macworld.com/article/3276327/the-steam-link-
app-...](https://www.macworld.com/article/3276327/the-steam-link-app-for-ios-
is-dead-rejected-by-apple.html)

~~~
zaroth
Humans applying policy will be inconsistent. The alternative is Google where
algorithms apply policy, and if they misapply a policy to you're simply
screwed.

I think the inverse to "Apple employed humans make a judgement call" is "Apple
is no longer allowed to control their App Store". I don't like that option,
because the curated App Store is a big reason why I bought an iPhone.

~~~
mikenew
> Humans applying policy will be inconsistent.

This is not my argument. It is not just _inconsistent_ , it is _selective_.
Major players are given far more leeway than small ones. There are obvious
antitrust concerns, such as Spotify being required to give Apple 30% of it's
revenue for it's service that competes with Apple Music[0]. There are concerns
about freedom of speech and information, such as Apple removing an app that
notified the user when there was a U.S. drone strike[1], or the Hong Kong
protest app that China pressured them into removing. Or blocking all VPN apps
in China.

And even if the argument at the end of the day is "I don't care; I like having
a curated app store", why does that imply that Apple should be able to force
users into only using theirs? How do you lose anything if users are allowed to
install apps from other places, in some cases where there are serious human
rights issues at stake?

0: [https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/16/apple-pay-and-ios-app-
stor...](https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/16/apple-pay-and-ios-app-store-under-
formal-antitrust-probe-in-europe/)

1: [https://theintercept.com/2017/03/28/after-12-rejections-
appl...](https://theintercept.com/2017/03/28/after-12-rejections-apple-
accepts-app-that-tracks-u-s-drone-strikes/)

~~~
zaroth
It’s just one data point, but on the topic of IAP and revenue share, Spotify
actually pays Apple 0.075% of its total revenue. It’s a 15% fee on 680,000 out
of their 100,000,000 subscribers.

The 30% fee drops to 15% after one year, and Spotify hasn’t accepted IAP in
several years, so everyone paying for Spotify through Apple is paying the 15%
rate.

I do think larger clients should reasonably pay lower rates, as there’s a more
equal/symbiotic value proposition between the two parties.

------
parsimo2010
I think there needs to be some distinction between apps that are the main
product (or close to it) and apps that support another product (like there is
npo point to having the app by itself, you _should_ already have gotten the
product/account _before_ downloading the app). I don't know too much about
Apple's rules to know if they use that criteria, but it makes sense to me.

An app to manage your Tesla makes no sense unless you own a Tesla. You
probably (definitely?) created an account when you ordered your car, so you
don't need to sign-up in app. I suppose people that could buy a used Tesla
without a Tesla account, but I'm pretty sure you need to link the used car to
a new account before you can manage it through the app with the new account,
so it still doesn't make sense to offer in-app signup. I see no issue with the
Tesla app being approved.

Some of the other apps do seem to be legitimate complaints. Netflix being an
obvious one- it's totally plausible for someone to expect to download Netflix
on their iPad and then pay through Apple. Netflix could easily offer that but
doesn't (probably because of the 30% cut). Apple would gladly reject a smaller
app, but they approve Netflix because too many users would complain if they
couldn't get Netflix on their iPad.

Edit: one other thing I haven't seen whether Basecamp could just charge
$141.43 per year if someone pays through Apple, so Basecamp would get $99 per
year after Apple takes their 30% cut. They are allowed to offer outside
subscriptions for multiplatform products, as long as those subscriptions are
also available in-app. That seems like it would follow Apple's rules. People
that don't care about money could sign up in-app, but most people will sign up
outside the app.

~~~
paulhodge
Tesla is definitely one of the easier cases to think about, the rest are in a
grey area.

But even with Tesla it's not 100% crystal clear. There might be some buyers
who pick Tesla specifically because of the fancy tech features like Summon
mode. It's impossible to use Summon mode without the app. So for one of those
buyers, the app is an essential part of the purchase, just like HEY
subscribers who expect to read emails on their phone.

~~~
parsimo2010
I don't think every app comes with a clear label attached, but I think most
people could decide which apps are the product and which apps are just a
feature for the product. For argument's sake, I'll claim the core distinction
to be if the only realistic alternative to use a product is through an app on
another platform or through a web browser, then the app is the core product
and not just a supporting feature. The product can live on servers, but if it
weren't for the app then the servers wouldn't matter.

I can still drive a Tesla without the app. It's clear that the core product is
car, not the app. Some people may have bought it because of a defining
feature, but you are not paying $80k for Summon mode. You are paying $80k for
a car that has Summon mode.

Wells Fargo offers almost all of their functionality through physical branches
and ATMs. Having an app is just a feature, a bank account is clearly not an
app.

I cannot use Netflix without an app or browser on my TV, phone, tablet, or
computer. There are movies stored on servers, but I'm not paying $15/month
unless I can watch movies. That means Netflix's core product is an app and per
Apple's rules they should offer in-app purchases.

WeWork is a little harder for me. They are a real estate company but I'm not
sure you could call WeWork and get a workspace over the phone nor could you do
it in person (you can call a landlord directly, but that is not WeWork's
product). I think their core product is that you can book a space online or
with an app. I think they need to have in-app signup and purchases.

Github is the most gray one for me- once setup, I use it mostly through the
command line. I could claim that the core product is not an app, but I don't
honestly believe that. I use a significant part of GitHub's feature set
through the browser (discovering repositories, clicking through links to read
about a package before cloning it).

~~~
baddox
I just don’t think the distinction is actually as clear as you describe it.
Most of these apps are _clients_ for a server-based product that you’re paying
for. One could argue that the Netflix app isn’t the product, it’s just a video
player that you use to connect to the server that you’re paying to have access
to. If Netflix just exposed .mp4 links in a web browser, then it would work
fine in Safari on an iPhone.

Or imagine a cloud-based e-book service that you can just SSH into. Should
Apple allow apps marketed simply as SSH clients, but not allow an SSH client
branded with that e-book service?

~~~
parsimo2010
I addressed this. It's not a watertight mathematically provable law, but I
think that with the majority of apps, a reasonable person making a good faith
effort would have the same conclusion as me. I said if it's the only
_realistic_ alternative is to use an app or browser. I also said that the
product might "live" on a server, but if you can only access it via app or
browser then the product is an app.

Most of these products are not clients. A client is something like an RSS
reader, where one company makes app but interact with services/products from
other companies. Netflix does not sell you a subscription to watch movies and
then allow you to watch it with third-party apps. They do not expose .mp4
files, so saying "if they did this" isn't relevant. They try their hardest to
force you to watch with their app.

Overall, your arguments are silly. People have common sense and can use it.
Using misdirection in your words doesn't change what the functionality of the
product is. Coming up with strange corner cases that don't exist and aren't
viable products aren't good examples. Until an actual commercial e-book
service that functions through SSH exists then Apple doesn't need to waste
their time addressing it.

~~~
baddox
I'm not disputing the fact that, barring some controversial edge cases, most
people could probably agree on the classification. My point is that Apple
clearly appears to be claiming that there are some very clear rules that are
followed strictly without any personal judgement about any particular app or
company. A lot of their PR about this stuff has been of the form "we're not
making any judgments about you, we're just following the rules" (never mind
that it's _their_ rules in the first place).

But I think that's pretty clearly not the case, and moreover, I think people
might be just as upset if Apple's policies said "we just use our common sense
to classify apps and determine which features they can use on our platform"
and then appeared to apply those determinations inconsistently.

------
hakcermani
Good start with compiling the list .. a couple more .. AirBnb, All airline
apps. Maybe they have contracts with the big guys for some lump sum deal, or
maybe they are just letting them go as they have to ... We developers already
pay for the subscription, WWDC, a shiny iPhone / MBP every couple of years (to
test and develop the new features :(, learn a language and sdks just for the
Apple world - We Devs need Apple for sure, but hey they need us too (!) ..
high time for a push back .. Apple makes tons on the devices, they need to
stop robbing from us little guy developers. Apple do the right thing and drop
this 30% altogether .. you will not miss it :)

~~~
Will_Do
Yea this is probably the best year to introduce unpopular, rent-seeking rules.
You'll never be forced to see any of these people in person and the government
has enough on its plate to even consider thinking about anti-trust issues.

I'm confused why they don't rip the bandaid off and just charge everyone at
the same time though. Charging Tesla 30% probably isn't feasible but this
seems like an ideal time to introduce fees for __all __companies that are
currently allowed exemptions (Netflix, Lyft, Airbnb, Uber, Audible, Airlines
etc). Yes they could put up a fight but at least some of them would cave.

Until the government gets involved, they are totally allowed to selectively
and arbitrarily enforce the rules. Banning Hey but not Netflix just makes them
look like hypocrites and makes them less money. Seems like the worst of both
worlds.

~~~
PaulDavisThe1st
You think Netflix would cave to apple on this? I don't think so. Netflix would
just make it extremely public that Apple have blocked user access to the app
on iOS. Apple is the one that will cave, not Netflix. I mean, come on, iPhones
are popular but not even majority of the market.

------
TedDoesntTalk
I am amazed how many people on HN are defending Apple. I had the naive
assumption that my fellow tech savvy would denounce this. The comments here
are eye-opening.

It is as if a lot of people just don’t see or don’t care about monopoly or
monopolistic behavior. The product is great, Apple is has the highest market
cap of any company in the world, it’s founder has god-like status. What’s the
problem?

~~~
screwycaboose
Because it's not a monopoly. Apple is roughly half of the marketshare in the
US, and dramatically lower than that worldwide.

They're also not saying that Hey can't be in their store, or even needs to pay
them anything. Hey could offer a free tier and wouldn't owe Apple a dime.
Basecamp already does this so they know it very well.

~~~
twicetwice
They certainly have a monopoly on "distributing software to iPhones." I don't
get why no one makes this point. One could argue it's a monopoly they've
earned. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But certainly there is a market for
iPhone app distribution, and Apple has a monopoly in that market.

~~~
nodamage
Because at that point you've redefined the word "monopoly" to the point where
it becomes tautological.

~~~
twicetwice
How so? Seriously. There seem to be lots of people who don't consider Apple to
have a monopoly in any market, and I just don't get it. Can you explain the
argument for that position?

~~~
nodamage
Because there are meaningful alternatives to the iPhone on the market.

If I claim that a gas station has a monopoly within a three block radius, that
might be _technically_ true, but only because of the constraints I applied.
It's not actually a meaningful distinction if the consumer can drive down a
bit further and find another gas station.

~~~
twicetwice
Right, but when it comes to selling software to people who have iPhones —
there's a market for that, right? — Apple clearly has a monopoly in that
market.

Imo it's more like saying, "Foocorp in the US doesn't have a monopoly, since
you can always move to Canada and buy from BarCo or one of its competitors
there!" Well, Foocorp is still the only seller in the US, so they have a
monopoly in that market.

~~~
nodamage
> Right, but when it comes to selling software to people who have iPhones —
> there's a market for that, right? — Apple clearly has a monopoly in that
> market.

Sure. I also have a monopoly in the market of "selling lemonade on my front
lawn". Is that a meaningful distinction?

> Imo it's more like saying, "Foocorp in the US doesn't have a monopoly, since
> you can always move to Canada and buy from BarCo or one of its competitors
> there!" Well, Foocorp is still the only seller in the US, so they have a
> monopoly in that market.

No one would consider moving to another country a realistic alternative. So in
that situation, yes, there is a monopoly because the consumer does not have a
realistic alternative. If a gas station is the only gas station in the city,
then it too would have a monopoly in that city, because driving to the next
city every time you needed gas is not realistic.

------
hyperpape
There are a lot of rules lawyers in threads about Hey trying to figure out
"tricks" that Basecamp or others could use to avoid the rule. That is not how
this works. Apple is not a court, which (usually) plays by well stated rules,
and cannot remake those rules at its discretion.

No, if you find a "trick" to get around Apple's rules[0], what happens is that
you get blocked when they catch you. They might update the rules to explicitly
ban what you did, but they'll gladly ban you first and change the rules later.

That's if you're little. If you're big (Google, Facebook, Uber), you might get
a call from Tim Cook warning you that you need to stop what you're doing or
you'll have trouble soon. Or perhaps they'll ban your cafeteria app, while
leaving your consumer apps in the marketplace. Maybe you'll even get to
negotiate, if you have enough leverage. But what won't happen is that Tim Cook
will say "Looks like the rules don't cover this situation. Awwww, shucks!"

[0] There are some rules they don't care about (like marketing using push
notifications), and enforcement of rules can be mixed. This is for the rules
they care about.

~~~
breakfastduck
It's a bit of a joke to be honest.

Hey are trying to market an app on the app store as a 'free' app. Not offering
sign up also means they don't have to add the 'offers in app purchases'.

So they're advertising the app as free. Even though its $99 a year.

Apples 30% cut is obscene and should be less. But Hey are using a 'free' label
to market their app.

~~~
preinheimer
You're catching some flak here, but I think it's a fair point. It says "free",
but all you get for free is... an icon on your home page and a login screen.

Apple could solve this by allowing a "Free, account required"
descriptor/category for Netflix/Dropbox/etc/etc.

So "Free" is a lie, but one many other apps have used beforehand.

~~~
pfranz
I think Apple solved this issue years ago because they got flack about "Free"
apps that would have in-app purchases. Apps are not marked "Free" in the App
Store. Instead it simply says "Get" to download the app.

They could add a "requires account" tag like they have "in-app purchases" but
I don't think that would satisfy what Apple is looking for here (money).

------
iSoron
> "That’s not what we want on the store" \-- Apple Vice President of Worldwide
> Marketing

What if I own an iPhone and HEY is what I want on my phone? How can I override
Apple's decision? If I can't, who really owns this device?

~~~
scubbo
> How can I override Apple's decision? If I can't, who really owns this
> device?

I know you're not, but - anyone earnestly asking this question hasn't been
paying attention to Apple since, well, ever.

~~~
iwasakabukiman
Not just Apple, the entire electronics industry.

~~~
catalogia
TVs used to come with circuit diagrams so that people could repair it
themselves at home using standard parts. I've not seen anything like that in
many years, even for far simpler appliances.

~~~
scubbo
I feel like that's a disingenuous comparison, given how complex the
electronics of appliances must be nowadays (disclaimer: I have absolutely no
idea, my experience is strictly at the software level) - but the general
principle should still apply to be able to use products that you own in a
(non-harmful) way that you choose.

~~~
alerighi
Still there are components were a schematic would be useful. For example a
schematic of the power supply, since 90% of the faults that TVs have are
related to that. A power supply is not that complex and having a schematic
would mean that repairs would be simpler.

Also nowadays it would be useful to have some sort of debug port, for example
a serial port to connect and have a CLI to do diagnostic, upload a new
firmware, etc. They have these interfaces in the TVs but most of the time are
either disabled or protected so the end user cannot use them.

~~~
o-__-o
That would mean you could fix it yourself and cut out their authorized repair
program. Better to just not put release the schematics, but also not go after
anyone that creates the schematics either.

See dishwashers, microwaves, Apple iPhones, and washing machines. Car
manufacturers still publish schematics for their circuitry (for a fee)

------
gjsman-1000
It's a good thing for Apple that WWDC isn't in-person this year. I wouldn't
trust the developers in the audience to stay quiet and applause at the
announcements this year...

~~~
moooo99
I'm surprised that Hey! managed to create such a big public outrage about that
issue. Years ago Spotify complained about the very same thing and given that
Spotify has a much bigger userbase I kind of expected the outrage to be
bigger.

I suppose a large share of the potential Hey customers work in tech and might
have a better understanding of what the app store tax actually means. And the
EU anti trust investigations probably play role too?

~~~
eddieroger
Everyone is home on their mobile devices waiting for things to happen. I don’t
think this outrage is as widespread as it seems, we just live in a tech echo
chamber that is resonating pretty loudly right now. And, it’s the weekend
before WWDC, so Apple headlines grab extra attention. I think if this happened
six months ago, no one would be talking about Hey and they’d have acquiesced
by now.

~~~
moooo99
I expected that the tech-echo chamber plays a role, but I was askeby friends
what this discussion is all about. Said friends don't work in the industry and
aren't really tech-savy either. Sure, is obviously tech focused, but it seems
more widespread than back when Spotify sued.

------
dgudkov
On a side note, I don't know whether it's intentional or not, but the whole
story is a great marketing campaign for HEY. Clashing with Apple made
everybody learn about the app in a matter of days.

~~~
jpttsn
It’s obviously intentional. I’ve never heard about Hey. Then today, first they
post something else and now someone defrosts this tired whine about Apple
monetizing, and Hey (whatever it is) tops the list. Sigh. Good work marketers,
people seem to buy it.

~~~
maest
So just because the publicity benefits Hey, the point about Apple's unequal
treatment of devs on their platform is invalidated?

Also, I'm not sure how Hey orchestrated this - do they have someone on the
inside who they had reject their app?

~~~
jpttsn
No, though it’s invalidated for other reasons, the enumeration of which would
here seem only to cause a resounding whoosh passing overhead.

It’s child’s play to orchestrate this. It amounts to getting thrown out of a
bar for not wearing pants, and then putting up
ishouldbeabletovisitbarswithoutpants.com. Not something that requires a man on
the inside.

------
arduinomancer
Why is Apple's revenue here even percentage-based at all?

It makes zero sense.

According to Apple they need this revenue cut because of the cost of keeping
the platform running.

If I offer a subscription in my app for 1$/month vs 10$/month what marginal
expense is being incurred that apple deserves an extra $2.70 for the higher
price?

~~~
jedberg
This is my big problem with it too. The cost of maintaining the app store and
the search is the same no matter what the app is. It should be a fixed fee.

On the other hand the argument is that all the $0 apps are being subsidized by
the paid apps, so they went percentage based so that the cheap apps didn't
have a huge fee. It would mean the cheapest paid apps in the app store would
be a lot more to absorb the fixed cost, or if they shared it evenly, then
there would be no free apps.

~~~
Drew_
You still have to pay $100-$300 to publish a completely free app.

~~~
csours
But not per user.

------
reustle
I have no horse in this race, but it has been interesting to watch the
conversations grow over the past few days on this topic. Some people are so
pro-Apple on this, clearly ignoring some of the primary complaints (like no
option to not use the App Store for distribution).

As I get older, I can't help but wonder if these people are simply
shareholders of Apple (or any company in a discussion like this). Is this good
for society overall, to have such a strong financial incentive for so many
people to willfully ignore the other side of important arguments?

~~~
chrisseaton
> Is this good for society overall, to have such a strong financial incentive
> for so many people to willfully ignore the other side of important
> arguments?

Ironically, you're wilfully ignoring the other side of the important argument,
and telling yourself the lie that anyone who disagrees with you must be being
paid to do so, rather than listening to them and thinking about why they may
think that way through their own reasoning.

~~~
reustle
> and telling yourself the lie that anyone who disagrees with you must be
> being paid to do so

I specifically said "can't help but wonder". It just crosses my mind, no
assumptions are made.

------
screwycaboose
Seems like a lot of these examples are intentionally ignoring the rules that
allow them as exceptions just to build up a bigger strawman:

* Netflix: Reader app (reader is a special Apple exception for movies/tv, books, news... mass-market media)

* Github: Offers a free tier

* App store connect: I mean come on, it's an Apple dev tool

* Tesla: exception for physical goods

Basecamp/Hey knew this was going to happen. It's a wonderful marketing
campaign for them.

Apple has zero incentive to change this. The buzz around it is niche and
they'd lose countless dollars if they opened the door for exceptions. Basecamp
knows this.

Also, where has Basecamp been for the decade prior? Funny how they're propping
this as some rightgeous issue when it suddenly impacts their bottom line.

~~~
dan-robertson
> Also, where has Basecamp been for the decade prior? Funny how they're
> propping this as some rightgeous issue when it suddenly impacts their bottom
> line.

I think they testified in the US Congress about Apple’s practices recently

~~~
screwycaboose
Recently enough that they happened to be working on Hey at the same time.

~~~
DangitBobby
Your point being?

------
cannam
I'm really enjoying all this.

I don't care about Hey and I'm not an iOS user, but I would love to see this
situation, which represents something increasingly accepted as normal but that
none of us quite understand, forced into a proper accommodation with reality.

------
MattGaiser
One of the problems is that as a consumer, I like the features Apple
implements with this.

I can just use Apple Pay instead of handing over my credit card. Don't want a
subscription? No complicated process. No need to call a number. No need to
email anyone. I just click to cancel and I am done.

As lousy as this is, the consumer experience is dramatically improved.

~~~
Hamuko
> _As lousy as this is, the consumer experience is dramatically improved._

Is that worth paying $43 extra per year on a HEY subscription?

~~~
breakfastduck
Not to me, but that's my choice to make. I just won't use it.

~~~
Hamuko
Unfortunately Apple's intention is that you would not hear about an
alternative way to pay for the subscription and that the alternative way is
cheaper.

~~~
Spivak
I mean if you partnered with Target to sell your shampoo I think they would be
rightfully pissed if the bottles you sent them to put down said something like
"Buy it on our website instead for 30% cheaper!"

~~~
Hamuko
I imagine that if a consumer sees a product at Target, they have an idea that
the product might be cheaper somewhere else. However, do consumers have an
idea that if they seen an in-app purchase that the exact same thing might
actually be on sale somewhere else and that it has a different price?

If the app says that "One year HEY subscription" is $142 and the app is from
HEY itself, what reason is there to believe that it's not just the plain old
price of HEY?

------
p0llard
Ordinarily I would be inclined to say that as a "private marketplace", Apple
is entirely within its rights to selectively enforce rules (and whims) like
this so as to maximize their profit, but surely there must be a limit when
about 45% of US smartphone users (so about 36% of the population) have an
iPhone [1]?

At this point this is no private dark pool, but a public market place, the
transactions on which affect an unfathomable number of consumers, and Apple
should and must be subject to the level of government regulation and oversight
that governs other public market places like the NYSE and the CME. I suspect
that this will come sooner or later, or otherwise these markets will be broken
up entirely, but behavior like this from Apple only hastens this outcome.

[1] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/236550/percentage-of-
us-...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/236550/percentage-of-us-
population-that-own-a-iphone-smartphone/)

~~~
akersten
I dislike the 30% IAP cut as much as the next developer, but what is it about
perceived tech monopolies that bring out the hyperbolic comparisons?

> Apple should and must be subject to the level of government regulation and
> oversight that governs other public market places like the NYSE and the CME.

First it's Facebook should be treated as a Public-as-in-Government Square, and
now the App Store should be governed like the _stock market_?

I think Apple's morally in the wrong here. But the solution isn't just going
to be just pulling some lofty regulation out of thin air and trying to re-
apply it.

~~~
Drew_
> But the solution isn't just going to be just pulling some lofty regulation
> out of thin air and trying to re-apply it.

That's exactly what the solution will be. Apple will eventually be responsible
for ushering in regulation that kills software distribution monopolies like
the App Store. It'll be an interesting new landscape to be in for a lot of
markets.

------
GiorgioG
I’ve been working on a side-project SaaS (primarily the backend to this point)
and a few weeks ago I’d decided I didn’t want to deal with the JavaScript
front-end world (I deal with it at work) and thought I’d build mobile and
desktop clients instead. At this point I’m ready to reverse my decision. Screw
Apple and Google. They’ve built these App Store ecosystems to drive
sales/adoption of their platforms (Apple sells more hardware and google
collects more eyeballs.)

Somewhere along the way they forgot that apps are why people use their
devices/platforms.

------
mns
So nice for the people of Basecamp to be fighting the good fight for everyone
and the small developers. It’s not like they were perfectly fine with the
system as long as it didn’t affect them, being one of the “famous” companies
out there, while independent developers and small start-ups had to deal with
this for years and years.

I was excited about hey before, and even though I don’t agree and don’t like
the way the App Store works, I find Hey and the superstars behind it so
hypocritical and annoying now. It’s funny how we hate here AMP and other
technologies that are killing the open web, but we’re fine with a closed email
system that locks you in Basecamp’s walled garden.

~~~
judofyr
> I was excited about hey before, and even though I don’t agree and don’t like
> the way the App Store works, I find Hey and the superstars behind it so
> hypocritical and annoying now.

I don't understand this sentiment. You don't like the way the App Store works
and a company comes along and is willing to fight against Apple for it, and
_then_ you start disliking them? Why are they hypocritical? They are pointing
out flaws and being loud about them. Yes, I am aware that it's because it
aligns with their financial/strategical interests, but ultimately it's a good
thing that they are pressuring Apple, no?

> It’s not like they were perfectly fine with the system as long as it didn’t
> affect them, being one of the “famous” companies out there, while
> independent developers and small start-ups had to deal with this for years
> and years.

What about Netflix, GitHub and all of other companies who are able to get
away. They are apparently big enough that Apple cares about them to bend the
rules; why aren't we annoyed that they're not willing to stand up for other
developers as well? They certainly should have some way of pressuring Apple.

> It’s funny how we hate here AMP and other technologies that are killing the
> open web, but we’re fine with a closed email system that locks you in
> Basecamp’s walled garden.

How is Hey "a closed email system"? It sends and receives emails using SMTP.
Closed source email clients is far from a new invention and

~~~
donarb
The client doesn't use SMTP, you send your email to their server, probably
using a json payload. They then send it for you over SMTP. Since the client
doesn't use SMTP or POP/IMAP, you can't use Hey with a traditional email
program, you must use their client.

~~~
dan-robertson
I think that’s the whole point though. SMTP/POP/IMAP are pretty bad protocols,
especially for mobile. Also they imply that the email client/server have to
work in certain ways but hey! Want it to work in different ways

------
gcheong
I don’t think anything will change unless a strong class action and/or
monopoly suit is brought against Apple and I often wonder why we haven’t seen
one yet.

~~~
g_p
The EU's new antitrust investigation [1] might be close enough to a monopoly
suit, just likely to be slower and more drawn out. It had the desired effect
against Internet Explorer though last time around, I guess.

Relevant quote from investigation announcement: "The investigations concern in
particular the mandatory use of Apple's own proprietary in-app purchase system
and restrictions on the ability of developers to inform iPhone and iPad users
of alternative cheaper purchasing possibilities outside of apps."

[1]
[https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_...](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1073)

------
hendzen
Apple takes a 30% cut of all IAP.

Google scrapes info and displays it in widgets above links to the actual
content. Google charges trademark holders AdWords ransom to protect searches
for their own brands.

Amazon kills OSS business models by offering managed OSS services on AWS at an
unbeatable cost. Amazon picks off the best performing market place categories
with Amazon Basics ‘recommended’ competitors.

The list goes on and on.

Tech is an industry defined on building scale and then collecting rents. Apple
IAP is just the current outrage but the entire industry is working towards
building the next ‘platform’ for others to sharecrop on.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
I can use Google Chrome, and still use a non-Google search engine. I can use a
Kindle, and still read DRM-Free epubs.

Yes, all the major tech companies are engaged in rent seeking. But Apple is
the only one that says users must either must pay rent or _throw away their
hardware._

The App Store and its policies are not the problem. The App Store is Apple's
store, just like Amazon.com is Amazon's store. But the App Store shouldn't be
_the only way to get software on my phone._ And no, reinstalling apps from a
computer every seven days doesn't count.

(The semi-exceptions are game consoles. I don't like that either, but since
they're single-purpose devices I find it much less bad.)

~~~
roenxi
These things are true; and also a significant component of Apple's value
proposition. An Apple customer can be sure they will:

1) Never need to learn what a "sideload" is

2) Never be exposed to Apps that havn't been vetted by a trustworthy party (in
this case Apple)

Apple is taking the opportunity to milk app developers, but they've done an
effective job of positioning the milking process so that it is done in the
user's interests. It is quite possible that things like this 30% App Store tax
are one of the reasons why iPhones remain so prominent.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
> An Apple customer can be sure they will: (1) Never need to learn what a
> "sideload" is, and (2) never be exposed to Apps that haven't been vetted by
> a trustworthy party.

But Apple customers can be sure of that anyway--just don't sideload apps.
Anything essential is going to want to be in the App Store, in order to reach
customers.

~~~
roenxi
> But Apple customers can be sure of that anyway--just don't sideload apps.

Well, no. At some point they'd need to know what it is to decide if they
wanted it or not. At some point they'd encounter an App that isn't in the App
store and have to figure out sideloading. We've got a whole heap of people
commenting here today who give off a distinct "I want to bypass the App Store"
vibe. User hat on, I'd rather they were forced to use it.

I don't think there is enough reflecting here on just how critical a phone is.
At the extremes, the US government sometimes targets predator drones based on
phone GPS. I suspect an _enormous_ number of phones contain compromising
pictures. Phones contain detailed logs of where I am, who I'm talking to, and
potentially access to actual records of what was said.

I really don't want to be in a situation where 'Wowfunhappy' is executing
arbitrary unknown code on a phone owned by me or my family. I don't want
Google and Facebook browsing through and indexing this stuff either. Apple
isn't even a good gatekeeper, but they are much better than nothing.

~~~
salawat
Maybe... Just putting this out there. Just maybe... Instead of having your
phone double as an ad delivery platform, and actually fully embracing Open
hardware/software standards, and making sure the innards of your phone's
operating principles are absolutely visible to you, you wouldn't have to trust
your safety to people that look at you like cattle.

Imagine a world, where your Telco or anyone else for that matter can't
remotely tell your phone to turn on. A world where you and only you have
ultimate control over your phone, and where instead of millions of engineer
hours going into making your phone convenient for developers to utilize, it is
instead made easier for the user to actually understand.

That is the world I want to see. Hell I want to be part of making. I'll be
damned if I can figure out how to make it work with our Market's current
optimization function.

~~~
twicetwice
I mean, I agree with you. I'm right there with you. But you and I both know
that that model won't work for most people. They'll be in the same place they
are today—having to trust when other people tell them their phone is safe.

Incidentally, to the last paragraph, you can help make it work—go work on
Linux mobile UX/UI. Things like the PinePhone and the Purism Librem 5 exist,
and there's a market for them, they're just missing a polished user
experience.

------
malwarebytess
I have to wonder about the health of the industry when rent-seeking becomes
the norm. Rent-seeking stifles innovation and true growth, and is a sign of a
degenerate system.

>The reforms of Diocletian and Constantine made all productive activity
impossible. The reason is not that there were no more large fortunes, but the
foundation of their build-up was now no longer creative energy, or the
discovery and bring into use new sources of wealth, or the improvement and
development of husbandry, industry and commerce. It was, on the contrary, the
cunning exploitation of a privileged position used to despoil people.

[https://medium.com/@guisebule/rise-of-the-rent-seeker-how-
th...](https://medium.com/@guisebule/rise-of-the-rent-seeker-how-the-
subscription-economy-hurts-startups-entrepreneurs-its-af48fe98e555)

------
Hamuko
Could someone point out where the "you download the app and it doesn't work"
[1] and the "the criteria is different for apps that are targeted at
businesses instead of consumers" [2] rules are actually listed for developers
to read?

[1] [https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/18/phil-schiller-apple-
hey...](https://www.macrumors.com/2020/06/18/phil-schiller-apple-hey-decision-
no-changes/)

[2]
[https://daringfireball.net/2020/06/hey_app_store_rejection_f...](https://daringfireball.net/2020/06/hey_app_store_rejection_flimsiness)

~~~
smitop
Here are the App Store Review Guidelines, section 3 is about in-app purchases:
[https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/](https://developer.apple.com/app-
store/review/guidelines/)

~~~
Hamuko
Which clauses are those two rules in?

~~~
jedieaston
The rule that business-targeted apps and consumer-targeted apps are subject to
different IAP rules is not in the App Store Review Guidelines. Basecamp asked
them why Hey was blocked and Basecamp was not, they were given that as a
response.

------
5Qn8mNbc2FNCiVV
I really don't understand how so many people cannot understand the simple fact
that it's "Fuck you pay us 30% or you won't get on iphones".

It's not "Hey you can use our store for 30% revenue cut and other benefits or
you can market/host/whatever else it yourself".

This is what they are comparing it with Google, idc what else shady stuff
Google is doing but if I want my app on an android without paying Google a
dime I can do so with the obvious disadvantage of not being in the store.

This just doesn't exist with Apple. At all. It's as simple as that

~~~
dan-robertson
People can understand something and think that it’s immoral or that they don’t
like it. The reason this thread has many replies is that people have strong
opinions, not that they don’t understand.

But also your first sentence is merely partly true. It isn’t a simple fact
because it is selectively enforced. It comes with the caveat that if you’re
big then probably the rules don’t apply so much to you

------
scubbo
I'm pretty surprised they haven't just Maliciously Complied by offering an in-
app signup buried somewhere obscure in the app, with _lots_ of big flashing
warning signs saying "don't click this, it's only for compliance reasons" \-
and a nice discoverable easily-followable link to the browser-based sign-up.

They could be continuing to make the (justified and correct!) stink about
Apple's terrible practices, while also having their app on the store (or
forcing Apple to further highlight how arbitrarily-applied their standards
are). Win-win.

~~~
the8472
Why not jack up prices and then offer a 30% "discount" via web signups?

~~~
jonplackett
part of the app store rules is you can't do that. you have to offer it for the
same price. somehow spotify seem to have gotten away with not doing this.

~~~
scarface74
That’s not true. In fact Spotify did charge more for in app subscriptions v

~~~
jonplackett
Maybe they changed this. I thought that was a rule to begin with

~~~
scarface74
This was back in 2015.

[https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/8/8913105/spotify-apple-
app-...](https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/8/8913105/spotify-apple-app-store-
email)

------
MrStonedOne
Think of a flee market.

Lets say this flee market runs their own PoS system that tables can use, they
require all sales happen via this PoS system "to protect customers from
hacking", and they charge a percentage for providing this service, higher then
normal under the guise that the transaction is being conducted on their
property, they are "hosting" the "sale" under their roof, so they set the
terms for it. Seems fair and good, ish

Now lets say that they also own the city bank, and they are the only one
allowed to take their bank's debit card as payment. Most people don't use the
other, newer bank because everybody they know is using the flee markets bank
as it was first. So if you want to take credit card payments you have to sale
at the flee market.

Is it still fair and good for them to continue to set all terms relating to
how sales are conducted in a selfish way when they have a monopoly gained in
part from first mover advantage? eh, maybe, maybe not.

Now they say that if you sale any spare parts or consumables for a product
that was originally sold at the flee market, you must only do so at the flee
market.

Is it still fair and good for them to use the fact that the transaction is
happening on their property to set higher fees on these follow up transactions
when they require these follow up transactions to happen on their property?
While exploiting a first mover advantage that causes more of the initial
transactions to happen on their property?

Never forget that you can't just look at each piece, the whole matters too.

Each individual piece of the macro is ethically an "eh" at most, but the whole
is a bit more then "eh"

~~~
1123581321
This is pedantic, but it’s “flea market.”
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flea_market](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flea_market)

------
wackget
Why doesn't this website have an introductory paragraph at the top explaining
what we're looking at? Seriously, there's zero context to this information. I
was able to _infer_ an understanding from the context of the page but it's
terrible to expect your readers to have to do that.

------
rocky1138
All of these examples work as websites. What this says to me is that we
actually don't _need_ apps.

~~~
paulgb
Except Hey, which would need the Push API to build a reasonable PWA
experience. Android and Safari desktop have it, but not iOS.

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

~~~
the_gipsy
Android has this feature for how many years now?

I tried to look it up, I saw 13 years but that sounded like too long.

------
zaroth
There are very few examples here which are direct comparisons.

There's a difference between an app which is an auxiliary offering to an
existing service, and an app which is the product itself.

I totally understand Apple's "it should just work" policy. Its a big reason
why the net spend in the App Store is as high as it is. App Store is a big
reason why people are spending money on small dollar apps in the first place.

There are approximately 2 million apps in the App Store. How many of them
would be trying to collect credit card information independently if Apple
stepped back from their IAP policy? It was be a usability and privacy
nightmare. For the average user, tap to purchase / IAP is what makes the App
Store "just work".

------
tomlagier
I think the standard response should be to allow the in-app signup/purchase
with a 42% marked up rate and a very clear line item that it is the "Apple
platform tax, not charged via other distributors".

Worth doing the same to Google IMO.

I think the "right" amount to charge would be something like a standard credit
card processor - 30 cents + 3% or so. Maybe a flat 5 or 10% for apps under a
certain price. I can't imagine Apple's payment processing and app screening
being much more expensive than Visa's payment processing and fraud detection.

~~~
Spivak
You're not paying for the payment processing. You never have been paying for
the payment processing. You're paying for the fact that iOS devices are an
extremely valuable retail space and being able to sell there is worth _a lot_
of money to your sales funnel.

~~~
robbrown451
Yes but I think what tomlagier is saying is that the "right" thing to charge
for is the payment processing (he also mentions app screening), as opposed to
charging for the privilege of being allowed to run on Apple devices. Otherwise
you get into all these issues that are potentially "wrong," at least from the
perspective of people who agree with the general concept of antitrust law.

It's not just whether something is extremely valuable. App store as a "retail
space" wouldn't be so valuable if you could easily buy iOS apps in other app
stores. From the perspective of an iOS device owner, Apple has a monopoly on
the retailing of apps.

~~~
zaroth
Apple isn’t just providing payment processing. The entire development
environment and SDK, app hosting, install and update, services like Data Sync
(whatever they call it), Push notifications, etc.

If Apple let apps side-load from a website, and not access any of the iCloud
or push services... you’re basically back to a PWA.

~~~
robbrown451
"Apple isn’t just providing payment processing"

I didn't say they were. I said Apple's role is comparable, in that it is not
deserving of automatic 30% of revenue. It may be a lot of services, but it
still doesn't cost a lot per user and per app, especially when compared to
what a brick and mortar retail store does.

And it certainly doesn't make sense for an app like Netflix, which is
comparatively expensive per month because of how much use it gets, how much
bandwidth it consumes, and all the licensing and production costs. Imagine if
Netflix had to pay 30% to Apple.

Netflix gets away with not paying that 30% because they have leverage. But
smaller apps can't. Sounds to me like exactly what antitrust is for.

"If Apple let apps side-load from a website, and not access any of the iCloud
or push services... you’re basically back to a PWA."

If they wanted to (or were forced to by antitrust action), they could allow
third party services to do all those things, and for them to interoperate.
They choose not to because they make ungodly amounts of money the way they do
things now.

------
Zanneth
One point that is always conspicuously absent from all of these kinds of
discussions is a reflection on the actual value that Apple is providing for
apps that are hosted on the AppStore. In the modern day software ecosystem, it
is far too easy to take everything for granted and assume that all of these
big companies like Apple, Google, and Amazon are all building software
platforms for developers out of the good of their hearts. The reality is,
these companies are all profit-driven, and the only reason why Apple for
instance invests billions of dollars every year into the SDK is because there
is a mutually beneficial relationship that exists between them and the
developers.

Of course all developers want an ecosystem where they can develop their own
software for the devices that they and their customers use without
restrictions. However, the developer community should be careful to not become
too complacent and expect that Apple and other companies are just going to
give them everything that they want for free. If the technology industry wants
to get serious about building free and open platforms, then we should start
focusing on supporting projects like the Librem[1] smartphone which are built
with open-source ideals in mind.

[1] [https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/](https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/)

------
donatj
Our app requires users to log in and a multi-thousand-dollar membership. No
IAP option as pricing requires working with a sales person and a quote. Yet to
have an issue, hope it stays that way.

------
MarkMc
You download the app and it hints that you can sign up, but doesn't have a
button or link to do so. How frustrating!

This is the sort of crappy user experience that Steve Jobs would have railed
against. No doubt that he would accept, say, Netflix getting a discount off
the standard 30%, but there's no way he would have accepted the status quo
where (a) Netflix has a deliberately poor user experience on iOS to workaround
Apples rules; (b) Apple gets zero revenue from Netflix.

------
paulgb
> Purchases possible without Apple?

> $99/year email service, of which Apple is rent-seeking $30

I'm wholly on Hey's side here, but I think this is a misleading way of putting
it. Apple only wants 30% of in-app purchases, not purchases made outside of
the app. The contention is that Hey thinks they shouldn't be required to
accept in-app purchases, which given that either Hey or the user pays Apple an
expensive tax on those purchases, makes sense to me.

~~~
Hamuko
And Apple rejected the app because you can't buy that $99 service via IAP,
meaning they have no ability to get their 30%.

~~~
MattGaiser
Tie it to an API and break the API later?

~~~
Hamuko
Yeah, I imagine that's going to go down real well with Cupertino.

~~~
jedieaston
Well, there __is__ In-App Purchase support, but it only works if your IP is in
the 17.0.0.0/8 block. We put it in because we knew it was very important to
Apple ;)

~~~
Hamuko
Ah yes, Volkswagen engineering.

------
drawkbox
Apple shouldn't be dictating this.

However, even if apps/companies have sign up in the app I still use the web
browser to sign up. I like the security of the browser more for personal info
and set up than an app full of unnecessary permissions.

I personally truly do not mind, and even prefer, opening up a browser to sign
up. Overall for liability reasons it might even be better to just have one
endpoint for signing up, the web.

~~~
theshrike79
They can dictate it, they just should be consistent.

Force everyone to do it or no-one, don't pick the WORST POSSIBLE APP to deny.
@dhh isn't one of the people Apple really wants to get on the bad side of (See
Apple Card debacle).

~~~
quickthrower2
Yeah this is business, and they are playing the "follow the rules" unless you
have some clout, or the absence of your app would make us look shit.

------
grwthckrmstr
Seems like HN mods are flagging and removing anti-Apple posts from the front
page.

Why?

~~~
WillYouFinish
I was wondering about that, because I always thought, that HN was pretty open
about everything and there wouldn’t be a lot of moderation or any at all. What
is this? Facebook or Reddit?

------
mmglr
Sorry to change the conversation- but how is HEY any different from
maintaining a whitelist? For example iCloud has had the VIP feature for a few
years now which I use without issue. This is the 4th or 5th article on HN I
have seen talking about HEY and Apple. It's almost like this is a marketing
ploy.

------
Shivetya
The Tesla app comparison is just dumb, facetious even.

I had a similar app on my Volt but in the case of Tesla the app just works if
you have the car whereas GM kept threatening to force you to buy into an
Onstar subscription to continue using some features of the app; that would be
something I could see Apple taking from.

------
frouge
We just need to realize that there is only have been two viable platform for
apps since smartphones exists, and as such some decisions should not be in
Apple/Google hands anymore at this point, some subjects should fall in the
public space. 3.5 billion people are using smartphones today, and we shouldn't
being told what to do by a few exec-dudes and their shareholder friends.

If Basecamp wants to do publish an email app - it's not porn, it's not racism,
it's not bad - and that iOS users also want it, Apple should not be in the
way.

I publish on the App Store and frankly I'm happy to benefit from the hosting /
payments / search and I'm ok to pay a price for that - even if 30% is huge -
but if some don't want that let them do what they want, it's not Apple to
decide that anymore.

~~~
Sargos
Why is porn excluded? Should people not be allowed to install apps that deal
with sex? If Apple does not allow sex apps then a significant chunk of the
population will be denied access entirely to something because Apple doesn't
approve of "those apps". Adults have the right to choose whether they want
those apps or not.

------
benologist
Developers that charge extraordinary amounts via subscription should be listed
somewhere too, so we know who to avoid. BUDGE used to make children's games
that unlocked for $5 - $15 one-time purchase, now the same size and caliber
titles are each almost $100/year, just a big Apple-sponsored bet on zombie
subscription fraud staying "acceptable" for a few more years till Apple fixes
the problem they created that amplified their cash flow. Throughout it all we
miss that the 30% isn't even getting us good custodians.

[https://mjtsai.com/blog/2019/07/12/predatory-ios-app-
subscri...](https://mjtsai.com/blog/2019/07/12/predatory-ios-app-
subscriptions/)

------
turdnagel
Basecamp/Hey seems to have hit upon a combination of use case, pricing, and
closedness that Apple doesn’t like. Email, $99/year, no POP/IMAP? Not allowed.
But there’s no policy on paper about it.

------
seph-reed
Extortion is lucrative. If you're ever trying to get super rich, you're going
to have to "crack a few eggs." As in: be an extortionist. That's what
"cracking eggs" means.

------
PeterStuer
_Any_ app can be split into a free client and a paid subscription. This is
exactly the same as any business can move all of its profits to be made in
some tax haven.

Just like in the latter, there is selective enforcement of the rules, leaving
the most prominent corporations to carry on as they please while nailing the
SME to the wall.

Pretty sure it will come to a point where the ingress of paid content into an
app will be taxed, regardless of where the payment was made, and that this
policy will be introduced by both Apple and Google.

------
makecheck
I know this list focuses primarily on account-based apps but I would argue
strongly that most pay-to-play games fall into this category.

“Buying” a game for $0.99 that has repeatable in-app purchases in the hundreds
or thousands is not “working” if you ask me. I would love to return to the
days where games are “complete” at the time you buy them, with essentially no
option to buy gems to make it actually work reasonably.

------
radiantmonk
Quick question. Why was it a found this article on HN about an hour or so
after it was first posted, but after 3 hours it is nowhere to be seen?

------
rudyrigot
Am I the only one to feel like the Hey people are basically having a faked
marketing-driven temper tantrum?

Not to say that Apple applies their rules fairly (I wouldn’t really know, but
I’m willing to trust there are issues). Just that each communication I see
from Hey feels entitled and self-dramatizing. It doesn’t feel like they’re
helping their own case...

------
dariusj18
I know it's not part of the principle, but is there anything in the rules that
says you can't charge an additional fee to those signing up using in app
payments? If this is the hill Apple chooses to die on, every Apple customer
just has to pay an additional 30ish% for a service, but of course you can
always sign up online for the special sale price.

~~~
humanistbot
Yes, markups are explicitly forbidden and will get you kicked off the app
store.

~~~
evan_
Youtube Premium is more expensive if you buy it as an in-app subscription.
$15.99 vs $11.99

------
toby-
Could somebody please explain this to me? I'm uncertain what this website is
trying to demonstrate?

Apps asking for signup first?

I feel out of the loop. Apologies.

------
jbombadil
Legitimate question: assume I sell a service that costs $7. If I understand
Apple's current restrictions I sell it for $10 on the app and for $7 on my
website, correct?

If so, can I put a banner on my app that says "hey, you can buy this on my
website for $7?" (without any links to the website). Just inform the user of
that fact.

~~~
baddox
You can choose a higher price in your Apple app, but you can’t mention the
price difference in the Apple app.

------
holoduke
iOS and the Playstore do not respect equality. low tier publishers are treated
completely different than the bigger ones. if those stores would be real
shoppingmalls they would have long be brought to court. Apple and Google play
the game smart. consumers are happy and are not aware of the underlying
ugliness of their business activities. smaller publishers / developers have a
hard time making a voice against these unfair eco system aspects. so far
nothing is changing. the top charts of both the Playstore and iOS consists of
apps which are best for the business models Google and iOS have slightly
different business models. but in the end of the day it's all about
advertising, data collections and IAPs.

------
EamonnMR
Big companies like Netflix, Google, Tesla, etc don't have to play by the same
rules that smaller developers do, and that shouldn't surprise anyone. What's
interesting to me is that Basecamp seems to want to join that club, or thinks
it already is.

------
unreal37
I think Apple is about to enter a multi-year anti-trust ordeal as Microsoft
and other companies have before.

Ironic that they used to be the small guy fighting against IBM, and now
they're the big guy pushing their "largest company in the world" status
around.

------
runamok
Is it possible to enable in app purchase at a higher rate exposing the "Apple
Tax"? In this case show $129 for in app and $99 if you go to this website...
Or is that against the TOS?

~~~
twicetwice
Yup, that's against the rules also.

------
jlbnjmn
Beautifully designed website that communicates the issue at hand superbly.

I wonder what grounds Apple thinks they have to do this? It really seems like
an above the law scenario.

------
blackflame7000
Time for a phone maker that isn’t absurdly greedy or nosey.

------
ggm
Industry regulation by the FTC not self regulation. This is about markets,
restraint of trade, monopoly behaviour and rent seeking. It's an FTC matter.

------
WrtCdEvrydy
This is a great list of apps that need 1 star reviews for not allowing you to
sign up on the app - Me, right now.

I wonder if I can automate the download and rate process.

------
surround
[http://isThisYourPaperOnSingleServingSites.com](http://isThisYourPaperOnSingleServingSites.com)

------
kgc
Apple has an exception for when the product is purchased as a physical good or
service. (Tesla and SOHO House in the example list)

------
botolo
I don't understand why some people think they have a right to be distributed
for free within the App Store. This store is something Apple created and I
think it's fair that they decide who can join and how. If you are a developer
and you don't like this, then develop your app for Android.

This is something similar to Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo asking for $$ from
developers if they want to sell their games for these platforms.

------
grumple
The most damning part of this is that you can’t sign up for Apple services in
their own apps for those services.

------
divbzero
> _WeWork — Allows in-app sign up?_

> _No, but you can view slow tracking shots of change-agents and disruptors._

:)

------
zuhayeer
Wow you lot quick with this, and the site is pretty – good stuff

------
ranci
I load the website and it doesn't work.

------
jonny383
Solid investment on the long domain name for a single article.

------
m0zg
I don't see how Apple can win this one TBH. If Hey isn't offering in-app sign-
up, they're in the clear IMO - the precedent for this is well established. So
they'll have to either apply the same rules to everyone, or disclose the
special treatment for the likes of Netflix, which does exactly what Hey does.

But I'm sure folks who defended Amazon banning Kindle books they don't like
will just say that Apple is not a monopolist, and DHH is free to build his own
mobile platform. /s

~~~
newbie578
If you have been following these few days threads like these, there were quite
a few "interesting characters" who said that if you don't like it, leave and
build your own platform x)

------
tylerwince
This site is really cool, but I think the person who took the screenshots
should charge their phone.

------
xwdv
I really don’t get the hills people choose to die on these days.

Do you want a successful business? Ok, then follow the rules, cover your ass,
and do what you need to do to get your business going, even if it’s not always
the ideal situation for you.

But no, I guess lashing out explosively and torpedoing everything because
you’re not treated like the big players when you’re still a little guy is more
satisfying, if less profitable.

~~~
spzb
It’s done wonders for Hey in free publicity. Not that that could possibly be a
reason for making a big fuss about it.

~~~
lvh
They didn't build this website.

~~~
spzb
Did I suggest they did?

