
Apple sends a letter to Hey: Change your app or get out of the App Store - peterstensmyr
https://www.protocol.com/apple-hey-rejection-letter
======
detaro
previously:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23569065](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23569065)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23568095](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23568095)

------
villgax
> We understand that Basecamp has developed a number of apps and many
> subsequent versions for the App Store for many years, and that the App Store
> has distributed millions of these apps to iOS users. These apps do not offer
> in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not contributed any revenue to the
> App Store over the last eight years.

They literally have paid 8 years of Developer Program fees for supporting the
AppStore.

~~~
helsinkiandrew
It's a different matter whether 30% is a valid cut for Apple to make on Hey In
App subscriptions. But $2,400 (8*$300/year?) for the delivery and update,
notifications and Siri integration etc to millions of apps/devices sounds a
pretty good deal.

~~~
libertine
\+ the hardware mandatory to build and submit Apps to the AppStore, right?

~~~
oauea
Yes. Apple forces you to buy their overpriced hardware if you want to develop
for their platform.

~~~
jmisavage
Xcode comes with an iOS simulator so you don't need hardware, but it would be
a bad idea not to test on an actual device.

~~~
oauea
How do I run xcode on Linux or Windows?

~~~
megous
In qemu.

~~~
oauea
Is this legally possible without software piracy? Can you link me to
instructions? Does apple have documentation anywhere?

~~~
megous
IANAL.

[https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM](https://github.com/kholia/OSX-KVM)

I don't know if Apple has documentation somewhere.

------
slhck
"These apps do not offer in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not
contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years."

This is pretty grotesque coming from a trillion-dollar company that anyway
already charges developers a yearly fee.

~~~
officemonkey
"We didn't get our cut" should only apply if they add value.

What value does the App Store provide Hey?

~~~
corobo
Access to 20 billion unjailbroken iPhones

~~~
kjakm
Take away those apps and those iPhone's become useless bricks. Apps +
developers add huge value to the platform.

~~~
threeseed
I think you are vastly overstating the importance of apps.

Apple could easily remove the App Store tomorrow, sign deals with a dozen or
so companies e.g. Facebook, Netflix, Twitter, Snap, Google, Microsoft etc and
they would still sell devices.

~~~
kjakm
I think if you think back to 2007/8 and people had the choice of Android with
millions of apps and a higher priced iOS ecosystem which only has some high
profile apps so few people would choose iOS that it would quickly become a
waste of money for FB/Twitter/MS to build their apps for it and it would die.

~~~
majewsky
In 2007/8 people were buying iPhones despite them not having an app store at
all.

~~~
kjakm
There was no App Store for the first year, which I believe is a time when
Android didn't exist. An app-less iPhone would not be able to compete with an
app-store backed Android.

------
snarf21
It seems like we soon see movement on this issue given the EU antitrust and
other social unrest. People are tired of things being not only unfair but not
even remotely reasonable. It is laughable that Apple Music on Android doesn't
use the built in IAP but forces you to pay via Apple. This will come back to
haunt them. It doesn't matter that the ToS don't forbid this but in civil
suits, it doesn't give them a leg to stand on. They are doing the exact thing
they argue would prevent them from making any revenue if they changed their
policy. If Apple was smart they would lower their percentage and move on.
Better to pick the number than have it forced on you.

~~~
horsawlarway
If the regulation is smart (sometimes the EU does ok with tech regulation,
sometimes they fail miserably) then it's not about picking a number.

The number is never the issue. The issue is that apple has artificially
blocked any competing channels from distributing to iOS.

I don't believe they should be allowed to have a legal monopoly on app
distribution. In fact, I'd go as far as the ruling for IE with Microsoft
around basically the same issue but for web apps -

Not only are you not allowed a legal monopoly on app distribution, you MUST
ask the user which app distribution methods they'd like to enable.

------
zxcb1
Apple demands that taxes are paid and laws are adhered to in their kingdom of
apps. Meanwhile, they are tax evaders themselves.

~~~
vidanay
It's good to be the King!

------
aaanotherhnfolk
Apple forces Hey's app in front of unsuspecting users with App Store
promotions. If the app doesn't provide any value to a random person who comes
across it in the App Store, that doesn't mean it should be banned from the App
Store. That means it should be banned from promotion in the App Store.

Hey should still be able to link its users directly to the App Store entry and
otherwise make it unlisted in the App Store.

Apple can find a creative way to tax this if they wanted, but what is the
yearly developer fee for if not a fee for distribution and security/compliance
certifications?

Apple needs to stop conflating distribution on their platform with promotion
on their platform. Not every app needs both. 30% cut only makes sense in a
publishing deal where Apple promotes the product in the storefront.

------
imron
> The HEY Email app is marketed as an email app on the App Store, but when
> users download your app, it does not work. Users cannot use the app to
> access email or perform any useful function until after they go to the
> Basecamp website for Hey Email and purchase a license to use the HEY Email
> app.

The Fastmail email app works exactly the same way and is available on the app
store without issue. Seems like a pretty arbitrary decision here.

------
davidg109
I’m on Apple’s side on this one. They’ve made Hey’s choice simple: change it
so it’s compatible for people to use their mainstream email services (no $
involved), or make it subscription out of the box. Currently you need some
dumb invite-only code.

I actually feel misled by Hey’s comments pointing out that Netflix, etc.
require a subscription to make the app useful. It wasn’t until I little
additional digging revealed that the main difference you can order it straight
away, and Apple still charges them the 30% fee. To get around this, Netflix
charges for in-app or you can order cheaper directly from their site. I don’t
believe Apple’s store T&C’s indicate Netflix is violating anything through
this model.

Really this is about how much is too much for Apple’s fee structure. I suspect
regulators may try to force Apple to allow other App Stores (like Android) but
then the usual problems will surface re: security, etc.

~~~
spartas
I'm with HEY on this issue.

As of a few months ago, Netflix abandoned in-app purchases entirely on Apple
platforms. Try it yourself: sign out of your Netflix account on iOS and try
and create a new account. There is no option to pay for a Netflix subscription
within the app on iOS. It just isn't there.

Fastmail is another app already on the App store that requires an account (but
has no option to sign up within the app itself). Salesforce Inbox and GMail
are two other email apps currently on the App store that do not allow the user
to sign up within the app itself.

(An aside about Gmail: I'm now receiving almost-daily emails from Google

> Your Gmail is full. Get more storage now with a Google One membership. Plans
> start at $1.99 a month.

How much of that money do you think Apple would like to get? How much of that
money goes to Apple? None. That is not implemented as an in-app purchase. )

~~~
davidg109
I’m still seeing in-app purchases as an option via App Store for Netflix. I
can’t comment on the other apps you mentioned except for Gmail. And here’s
where I disagree with you.

Gmail is still functional without paying anything. You don’t hit a paywall
immediately after downloading. The app provides immediate functionality to
users. If Google decided to force subscription-only, that’s when Apple would
be saying you need to either open it up, or use our in-app subscription
service. Google’s upsell is not a requirement to use Gmail’s basic
functionality.

The app must provide immediately functionality after downloading. Guess how
much functionality the Hey app I downloaded is providing to me right now?
Zero. Because I need an “invite-only” code.

~~~
spartas
My Hey app is also providing me with zero functionality as well. I'm not being
dismissive of your issue.

You know, maybe you do have a point (HEY should be using Apple's in-app
purchase system). They should set it up as a weekly auto-renewing subscription
at the most expensive price point possible ($1,299 USD). Maybe then Apple
would leave them alone.

*(@dhh has said that HEY will be removing the invitation-only restriction in July).

------
cannam
A curious thought experiment here is: what would the situation be in the case
of a hypothetical third-party app that provided access to your Hey email?

(I mean via some API that Hey offered - I think they don't actually offer one,
but it's a hypothetical.)

You would obviously still need a paid Hey account to use such an app, but
there would be no way for the app's providers to enable you to sign up for one
using Apple IAP. What then?

------
drchaim
I'm probably missing something, but can't Hey just make subscriptions in their
page and let the App from free in the App Store?

Is the same as gmail, I can pay for a Google Suite, but the app is freely
distributed in stores.

Basecamp should have great products (I've never used them), but it seems they
are using this as a marketing strategy.

~~~
simonh
>I'm probably missing something, but can't Hey just make subscriptions in
their page and let the App from free in the App Store?

That is exactly what they are doing at the moment. Apple has decided to invent
a new requirement that this approach is only valid for business applications,
and consumer client apps must offer in-app signup and purchase.

I'm generally pro-Apple on these issues. It's their store running on their
products on their infrastructure. However in this case I don't believe Hey is
violating the current stated and published app store rules. Apple's decision
in this case seems capricious and arbitrary, and more than a little
hypocritical.

------
wereHamster
Would it be allowed under the App Store guidelines to offer IAP, but then give
customers who purchase the service through the website 30% cashback? The price
would be the same in both places, you'd be purchasing the exact same service.
But a certain group of customers would get a 'loyalty bonus'…

~~~
propelol
Or do as Tinder, and charge 30% more in the app compared to their prices on
tinder.com

~~~
lanna
You have to raise the price by 43%: 1.43 * 0.7 = 1.00

~~~
Hamuko
And most importantly, you're not actually allowed to communicate what the
actual price of the service is. So any customer who doesn't look up the
pricing on their website will think that it's $142 a year, not $99 a year.

------
hombre_fatal
Finally a great breakdown of the issue and a fair look into what both sides,
namely Apple, are trying to do here.

> That, Apple said, is not what Hey is. Hey is a consumer app, paid for by
> users. And Apple takes issue with the idea that when one of those
> prospective users downloads the app, there's nothing they can do with it —
> they can't sign up, they can't pay, they have to go somewhere else before
> they can use the app. Apple doesn't like apps like that, at least when it
> feels they should be more accessible to their intended audience.

~~~
saysjonathan
The Hey onboarding today is tied to a website-driven invite and signup
process. While that _could_ be a bad customer experience through some lens,
what percentage of users following this flow are or will be downloading this
app prior to signing up?

In a larger sense, Apple seems to be saying that, at least for consumer apps,
they have an expected user flow from launch/beta through purchase. That flow
makes Apple the primary channel and pipeline. If you have a multi-channel app
(web + app, in this case), they want the main experience through the app
regardless of business model or context. This makes the customer experience
argument seem like misdirection.

------
grey-area
It seems any company becomes evil when it gets large enough.

------
gambiting
While obviously what Apple is doing is crap, why not just increase their in-
app prices only on iOS? That's what Marvel have been doing with their comics.
A comic that through their website costs £3, on the Android reader costs £3.29
and on their iOS reader costs £3.49. I always just buy them online and
immediately download to my ipad without paying the Apple premium.

Yes, it sucks - but it seems like a relatively easy way out.

~~~
koheripbal
...because raising the price also reduces demand. This is the nature of the
supply-demand curve. So you _still_ end up with less revenues.

Imagine that Hey found the ideal price point on the supply-demand curve. When
you factor in Apple's fee - the new optimal price point on the curve may shift
higher, but your net revenues will still be lower.

------
fierarul
Maybe the pandemic finally offers enough motivation for EU and US to make a
strong decision about this. The (smart)phone market, for many people the only
computing device they own, is utterly dominated by 2 monopolies under Apple
and Google.

The CEOs should get a medal and all the honours for providing society this
good platforms then promptly forced to allow separate AppStores on equal
footing.

~~~
qeternity
> 2 monopolies

Uh...

Also, monopoly has a very specific definition. It does not mean "company with
large marketshare".

~~~
fierarul
You are trying hard not to understand the message. The laws change to fit what
people consider right.

What Apple is doing might be almost legal but it is not right and laws can be
written to spell this out for them and others.

Computing should be declared a human right and selling mass produced general
purpose computers without allowing anybody to deploy any desired software on
that computer should be illegal.

~~~
qeternity
You may not like Apple, but I think it’s quite a leap of faith to declare
computing a “human right”.

You want an experience with an Apple product that Apple doesn’t provide,
whether you agree with it or not. Where do we draw the line? Should we force
all vegan restaurants to serve meat? Surely if computing is a human right,
then food is as well and thus I’m entitled to the experience I want as a
result. Apple would argue, and rightfully so, most of their customers want a
walled garden. People don’t want to have to worry about malware, scams, etc.
Why should they be deprived of offering this experience when you have plenty
of other choices for unconstrained computing.

~~~
fierarul
Some country was thinking about declaring Internet Access a human right. I
think computing should come before that.

The scale of any company should invite extra scrutiny from the state. Apple is
at a scale where it has massive societal impact, it's not the burger joint
down the road.

It would be trivial for Apple to add a toggle allowing users to switch from
'walled garden' mode to something more permissive.

On macOS you can install any software, or from identified developers or from
the App Store and I don't see macOS users screaming they can't manage without
their walled garden.

Why wouldn't iOS allow any installs from identified developers or from
anywhere?

------
simion314
Would it be more fair that

\- developers paid a hosting subscription for their app

\- pay for bandwidth used by the app downloads

\- pay for each update review

\- optional pay for promotion

\- Apple would not block legal content, just put it under a new category of
stuff Apple disaproves but is legal.

This would fix a part for the issues with stores, Apple can't say that they
are hosting your app for free anymore or that they provide you bandwidth.

The disadvantage I see is that small apps will have to pay a the yearly
subscriptions but if the price is fair I see it similar as you pay for a
domain and webhosting.

Apple will have to find a new way to make money though, like maybe have better
services instead of crippling competition, have better dev tools and hardware.

Imagine there are only 2 companies that offer web hosting , and they will take
30% of your money (not profit but total) and on top of that they can reject
your content if they don't like it.

~~~
IncRnd
That's absurd. The app store is not a service to developers but to consumers
that Apple uses in order to have a working ecosystem.

~~~
NovemberWhiskey
I don't really understand the argument. The App Store can be a service to both
developers and consumers.

That's typically what a store is. Product manufacturers accept that they will
sell more of their product in stores, enough to make up for the margin added
by the retailer, vs direct sales. Consumers accept to pay more the
convenience.

~~~
IncRnd
It's only indirectly true that the App Store is a service to developers.

It's a very straightforward argument.

Apple has the App Store in order to keep consumers. That it helps developers
is a side benefit. Apple would drop the store if didn't retain consumers on
the platforms.

------
myroslambda
I can offer some opinion as developer in a small indie game company (shameless
self-promotion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23565739](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23565739)).

Supporting iOS is super hard for us. The Apple market is heavily controlled
and supervised. We have had apps rejected because we included links to the
Android equivalent in the description (same price, so no big reason to switch
platforms when you are already on our iTunes page, and no way anyone can
install an Android app on an iPhone anyway). Apple used to offer a more or
less standard set of phones, resolutions, and architecture. But that has
diversified more in the last years. For Android and Linux, we have it much
easier to build tools, to handle dependencies, and generally to deploy.
Actually, all development happens on Linux, simply because it's a much better
and more comfortable platform. When we need to deploy for iOS, we boot the mac
computer (which we had to pay for), re-compile the game, try it on the iPhone
(which we also had to pay for), upload, and turn it off. Additionally, and I
don't have all the details on this myself, Google apparently has also made it
much easier for us than Apple to operate when it comes to taxes and banking.

We normally have to sell thousands of units per month to "make it" (and we
don't). For Android, the fees are low enough to justify keeping things open
even if we don't sell much one month.

In a wider perspective, we operate in a market with lots of apps and games
being offered for free, really high fees and standards set by the major
stores, and continuous pressure from the community, our competitors (of
course!) and ourselves to release more of our work as open source.
Essentially, the combination is crushing, and Apple's move does not help :(

For what is worth, we recently launched "safe2play"
([https://keera.co.uk/2020/06/17/safe2play-caring-for-
privacy-...](https://keera.co.uk/2020/06/17/safe2play-caring-for-privacy-in-
an-interconnected-world/)), which is an idea meant to make both people safer
and the pricing model more transparent. It would probably align with Apple's
desires better too, although that's an unintended side-effect.

------
jaclaz
Generically speaking, I thought that the promise of the Internet was to have
more (and more direct) access to resources.

When it comes to e-commerce or e-subscriptions that should have meant the end
of the middlemen, the products or contents/whatever are delivered directly
from the author/producer/supplier to the end user, cutting costs.

------
philliphaydon
If the app was like $1 or $2 on the app store just to avoid this headache, I
would pay it.

~~~
spartas
So would everyone else. Part of the problem is that hey is still in invite-
only, and everyone who is able would just pay $1 or $2 to get around the
invitation list.

~~~
philliphaydon
Wish there wasn't a stupid invite list so I can use it now instead of waiting
:/

~~~
spartas
Ditto :/

------
jw1224
Honestly, Apple's response is actually pretty reasonable, all things
considered. Read the full letter — it was clear, fair, and professional —
despite coming off the back of a lot of bad press.

I see plenty of comments are focussing on this quote, re their Basecamp apps:

> These apps do not offer in-app purchase — and, consequently, have not
> contributed any revenue to the App Store over the last eight years

Apple have (freely) provided Basecamp a platform to grow their business via
the App Store, whilst giving Apple (effectively) nothing in return.

Now that Basecamp want to grow their revenue further (at Apple's expense), AND
they are breaching the rules (whether you agree with them or not) — I don't
blame Apple for pressing the brakes. Especially not after all the negative
press this whole debacle has brought them.

~~~
horsawlarway
Some people are going to quibble with you over the costs paid for developers
licenses, but I think that's missing the real problem.

Apple is welcome to provide a platform for developers to distribute apps on,
on that platform I believe they should be able to charge whatever they
determine is reasonable.

Apple SHOULD NOT be allowed to have a legal monopoly on making that platform.

It's not really a _fair_ price (doesn't matter what it is) if there's no
alternatives because you've literally blocked them from competing.

This is the problem.

~~~
jmisavage
My Smart TV doesn't let just anyone deploy apps on it, is that an unfair
monopoly? I can always buy a different TV or in this a different phone.

~~~
horsawlarway
The issue is rarely that such a tactic exists, the issue is when a single
player (or a few very large players) dominates the market and uses that tactic
to stifle other entrants.

In 2001 when MS was sued by the government for this exact issue, it was the
combination of market dominance and tactics around vendor lock in that got
them in trouble.

I think in this case it's pretty clear that Apple is abusing their market
position in a similar way (as simply noted by how many of the comments in this
thread are "App store is good because of huge distribution channel")

So yes, in theory you could switch from Apple to Android, but honestly,
Android has exactly the same problem.

I'll add, I'm in no way absolving Google of the same practice. I think it's
well past time the government took them both to task for the app stores.

\---

Finally - Your tv comes with several ports on the back explicitly designed to
let it play signals from other vendors (like your cable box, fire tv, apple
tv, or any other)

So that's a trash comparison.

------
rvz
Maybe they should follow what Netflix is doing, since they don't have in-app
purchases in iOS which is why they don't allow registrations at all and force
you to sign up on the web.

Not sure about Netflix's Android app though, but Google has sort of done this
to Epic Games but only allowing logins and no registrations + card checks
might bypass the Apple 30% tax.

~~~
gecko
They did—or at least, are trying to. The issue is Apple is saying, based on
unwritten rules, that Netflix is allowed to do it, while Hey isn’t. And that’s
the crux of the problem

~~~
MoroCode
The reason Netflix is allowed to do it is because they are classified as a
reader app

> if an app is a way to exclusively consume content purchased elsewhere, like
> songs or movies or podcasts, they don't have to have in-app purchases.

According to apple an exclusive email client is not classified as a reader app
and so they are forced to offer in app purchases. The guidelines are super
confusing and in my opinion pretty crap but it's not a case of favouritism or
giving special exemptions to Netflix for example

------
projektfu
Apple’s policy really degrades the experience of apps on their platform, such
as Kindle.

------
dahdum
Basecamp obviously knew this would go down like this.

The cynic in me thinks this controversy was planned from the beginning as a PR
/ marketing exercise.

~~~
kjakm
I've seen this comment all over the place and I genuinely can't believe people
think this. Apple accepted v1.0 of the app. They're rejecting v1.0.1 which
just contains some bug fixes. How could anybody predict this? It's also going
to damage their long term relationship with Apple (an important partner) and
if they lose this fight their entire product is in danger as being unable to
access an email service on one of the most popular phones is going to be
unsustainable for Hey.

~~~
dahdum
Apple's stance on IAP isn't unknown, Spotify fought them and eventually just
started charging a 30% premium on iOS subscriptions. Hey could do the same
thing and likely will, but a public fight in the meantime is generating buzz.

They were probably surprised they got 1.0 approved, I certainly would have
been. Apple says they made a mistake approving it, which is not unheard of,
and them clearly identified the guidelines they're breaking.

Basecamp is full of smart and prominent people who know what they're doing. I
can't believe they didn't predict or plan for this scenario when it's one of
the most obvious to me.

------
Traster
Apple should just offer Hey the option of providing the Hey app without the
30% cut, but negotiate how much Hey wants to pay for use of Apple's SDKs.

~~~
IncRnd
Apple should negotiate with all developers as to how much they want to pay
developers for offering content on their devices.

------
Uhrheber
Do they also ban apps that show public transport schedules, because you can't
buy tickets through them?

~~~
detaro
That's really a nonsensical example. An app not having a feature to pay for
something is very different from an app _requiring_ to buy something
elsewhere.

------
dustinmoris
I'm probably in the minority with this view, but I do think that Apple's
response makes 100% sense and is fair and reasonable.

\- I don't like how everyone claims they want a 30% cut. That is factually not
quite true. It is 30% for non subs, which I think is fair. If I want to sell a
product on a specific distribution channel then the cut should represent the
possible reach and sales opportunity. In the case of subs it's only 15%. This
is quite different than 30%. 30% is only for the first 12 months and for a sub
which is paid annually this is nothing. Given that the first 12 months are
very crucial in gaining critical mass I think 30% is fair and later it is
really only 15%.

\- I have huge respect for DHH, but he criticises that Apple has published
their response to journalists, which is a bit rich given that he started this
"dog fight" in the public

\- The apps to which DHH compares Hey with are very different in nature and
all the mail apps he constantly mentions are also different in nature. They
all implement the suggestions which Apple has suggested in their response, so
it's really Hey who wants to be treated with different rules because DHH
thinks his online status can bully Apple into giving in? Not sure if that is
right

\- Also I think it is possible to do both. You can disagree with the rules and
fight them in a civil way in court, whilst also temporarily comply with the
rules like everyone else to get your app public. This approach of not wanting
to play by the rules, put them on fire and still publish an app whilst
everything is burning seems like a weird strategy to me. Slightly
unnecessarily aggressive in tone.

~~~
take_a_breath
==Given that the first 12 months are very crucial in gaining critical mass I
think 30% is fair and later it is really only 15%.==

It’s a lot harder to gain critical mass when you are paying 30% directly to
Apple, no?

== You can disagree with the rules and fight them in a civil way in court,
whilst also temporarily comply with the rules like everyone else to get your
app public.==

Make less money today while you fight the largest company in the history of
earth in court. Meanwhile, Apple will just built a competing product and embed
it in iOS (see: AppleTV). The rules seem to change while the game has already
started.

------
hyko
Apple’s position is clear and legal, and it’s how the economy works _including
the proposed hey.com business model_. There’s no antitrust violation here, so
pay your fees or go somewhere else. Apple don’t owe hey.com a place in the App
store, just like hey.com doesn’t owe me a free email address @hey.com.

~~~
Okkef
I wish I could downvote you. What apple is doing is much worse than microsoft
ever did, and they deserve to get a big antitrust lawsuit against them.

Just because their own rules say 'everybody owes us money' doesn't mean that
it's legal.

~~~
hyko
These aren’t Apple’s rules–they’re ours. It’s the parameters of a free
marketplace and flows from the idea of legal ownership of property. Apple has
a minority share of the smartphone market, so antitrust does not apply.
Antitrust a specific remedy to prevent monopolistic abuses.

If I build a high end hotel and the fee is $10,000 a night to stay there, you
can’t apply to the Supreme Court to have your bill reduced. It’s my hotel and
I can set the price to whatever I damn well please because it’s a _free
market_.

~~~
take_a_breath
This analogy makes no sense. It’s not a business to consumer issue. The
problem is Apple running their own marketplace and inconsistently applying the
rules they have created for that marketplace.

If the hotel opened a food court and treated the vendors like this, it might
be an apt analogy.

~~~
hyko
Well, let’s use the food court analogy then: whoever owns the food court is
permitted by law to set whatever rental prices they choose for their tenants
(provided they aren’t discriminating against people based on certain
characteristics). They don’t have to be consistent, because the food court is
their property and they have very wide discretion over how it is used. Fair?
No. Legal? Yes!

~~~
take_a_breath
I think it’s legality is up for discussion (that’s the discussion people are
currently having). Because your analogy still falls short because the hotel
now opened their own stall in the food court and is competing in the
marketplace.

What are they doing with the proprietary data from other marketplace
competitors?

