Basecamp's Hey, a New Email Product, Claims Apple is Rejecting Bug Fixes to the iPhone App Unless the Firm Agrees To Pay 15-30% Commission (twitter.com) 121
Basecamp launched its email product Hey earlier this week. David Heinemeier Hansson, the co-founder of Basecamp, tweeted on Tuesday that Apple is already creating challenges for the firm. In a series of tweets, he said: Apple just doubled down on their rejection of HEY's ability to provide bug fixes and new features, unless we submit to their outrageous demand of 15-30% of our revenue. Even worse: We're told that unless we comply, they'll remove the app. On the day the EU announced their investigation into Apple's abusive App Store practices, HEY is subject to those very same capricious, exploitive, and inconsistent policies of shakedown. It's clear they feel embolden to tighten the screws with no fear of regulatory consequences. He adds: Apple has been capriciously, inconsistently, and in a few cases, cruelly, enforcing their App Store policies for years. But most of the abuses were suffered by smaller developers without a platform and without recurse. Apple saw that it worked, and that it paid. Now moving up. This is exactly the issue I gave testimony in front of congress earlier this year! We hadn't yet launched HEY, but I said it worried me, what Apple might do, if you're in direct competition with them. And now we know what they'd do. Attempt to crush us. But while I'm sure Apple's attempt to cut off the air supply to the likes of Spotify is board-room stuff, I think what we're facing is simply the banality of bureaucracy. Apple has publicly pivoted to services for growth, so KPIs and quarterly targets trickle down. And frankly, it's hard to see what they have to fear. Who cares if Apple shakes down individual software developers for 30% of their revenue, by threatening to destroy their business? There has been zero consequences so far! Most such companies quietly cave or fail. We won't. There is no chance in bloody hell that we're going to pay Apple's ransom. I will burn this house down myself, before I let gangsters like that spin it for spoils. This is profoundly, perversely abusive and unfair.
We did everything we were supposed to with the iOS app. Try downloading it (while you can?). You can't sign up, because Apple says no. We don't mention subscriptions. You can't upgrade. You can't access billing. We did all of it! Wasn't enough. We've been in the App Store with Basecamp for years. We know the game. It was always rigged. It was always customer-hostile, deeply confusing, but the unstated lines were reasonably clear. Now Apple has altered the deal, and all we can do is pray they don't alter it further.
We did everything we were supposed to with the iOS app. Try downloading it (while you can?). You can't sign up, because Apple says no. We don't mention subscriptions. You can't upgrade. You can't access billing. We did all of it! Wasn't enough. We've been in the App Store with Basecamp for years. We know the game. It was always rigged. It was always customer-hostile, deeply confusing, but the unstated lines were reasonably clear. Now Apple has altered the deal, and all we can do is pray they don't alter it further.
What did they expect? (Score:2)
Appreciate the effort and I support the idea but of course Apple is going to take its pound of flesh for access to their store. Will be hard to regulate Apple on this front without sweeping regulation over phone markets in general. The Apple app marketplace is the most profitable but they don't control the market, they split it with Google and to a lesser extent Amazon. Can hardly claim they are a monopoly. When people buy Apple they buy into a restriction of where they can get software.
A question I h
Re: (Score:3)
A question I have is would there be anything preventing Basecamp from selling Hey for say $129 per year on Apple's store and $99 everywhere else?
You can't do that in Apple Store.
Re: (Score:2)
But the iOS version has an exclusive feature that the Android version doesn't (a button explaining why you have to pay more for the Apple version)
Granted to get away with that it probably will need to be something unique enough to give lawyers a good fight.
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to recall that Google has the same terms as Apple on apps and in-app purchases.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is Apple makes it as difficult as possible to install apps that don't come from their app store. And they will also spin massive amounts of propaganda that any app not directly from the appstore is malware or worse. (Granted, Google also tries this scare tactic with Android as well) Can you imagine if Microsoft tried spinning that any applications not from their MS/Windows Store were unsafe, and made it take several extra steps to install any of them? And yet that is exactly what happens on mobi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: What did they expect? (Score:2)
Do you make a habit of pulling facts out of your ass? Not a single thing you said is even remotely true.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There's no rule against that. " Multiplatform Services: Apps that operate across multiple platforms may allow users to access content, subscriptions, or features they have acquired in your app on other platforms or your web site, including consumable items in multiplatform games, provided those items are also available as in-app purchases within the app. You must not directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other pur
Re: What did they expect? (Score:2)
Re: What did they expect? (Score:4, Informative)
My company pays Apple not a penny. Well, $99 a year
Re: (Score:2)
I know this is slashdot so you didn't read the article, but try reading the summary.
They explicitly state that they don't allow any purchases at all within the iOS app. What Apple is doing is shaking them down for the revenue made outside the iOS ecosystem.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't do that in Apple Store.
Citation needed.
My spouse runs an app business and changes prices between platforms all the time.
If Apple had a policy of requiring price matching, it is likely that it would violate price-fixing laws.
Re: (Score:2)
Why was Microsoft the big evil for monopolistic practices back in the 90's, but Apple somehow is exempt?
Because 98% is more than 27% (Score:2)
A monopoly is when one company controls substantially all of an industry, when a company has no competition.
An example would be Windows in the 1990s, when they had 98% market share, effectively every business and everyone bought Windows. If your business didn't want to usr Windows, they could just ... well, take it up the ass, because they had to use Windows. That's a monopoly.
Apple has about 27% of the smartphone market. That's substantially less than "all".
If you don't want to buy an iPhone, you can us
Re:Because 98% is more than 27% (Score:5, Informative)
Let's say I support the underdog and purchase an Apple product. Now I want to purchase a game from an indie developer. How do I do that?
Go to the App Store.
Where else?
Nowhere else.
Ergo, the App Store is a Monopoly. ...
Let's say that one company has 100% of the breakfast cereal market. By your reasoning here, just because they don't have a monopoly on all food, they don't have a monopoly on anything.
Apple does have a monopoly on providing software for iDevices, and abuses that position, which is the very definition of anti-trust behaviour.
Re: (Score:3)
> Let's say that one company has 100% of the breakfast cereal market. By your reasoning here
No, Apple sells all of the iPhone brand smartphones. They don't sell allnof the smartphones. They don't even sell MOST of the smartphones.
Your reasoning is that my 6yo has a monopoly because only her lemonade stands sells Milan's lemonade.
That's called a brand name, not a monopoly.
> Apple does have a monopoly on providing software for iDevices ... which is the very definition of anti-trust
Actually precisely th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Because 98% is more than 27% (Score:2)
No, you don't own it. If you could do whatever you wanted with an iPhone, you could crash cell towers, and who knows what other damage could be done? An iPhone that you could install what you wanted is a dangerous weapon and something that should never be allowed ....
https://www.informationweek.com/mobile/apple-jailbroken-iphones-can-crash-cell-towers/d/d-id/1081762,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, the old Ma Bell [computerworld.com] 'Think of the Infrastructure! [wikipedia.org]' argument [yahoo.com], almost verbatim.
*I* purchased the hardware. *I* own it. Now, I'd be willing to make a concession that I shouldn't be allowed to do anything with it that would compromise the network. I'll accept a phone with the modem locked down.
But explain to me how exactly wanting a different keyboard on my phone is going to harm the phone towers?
I don't want to jailbreak my phones. I don't want to have to. Why the fuck is my phone in jail in the first pl
Because that's what you wanted (Score:4, Insightful)
> Why can't I install a different app store app on my Apple smartphone? I want access to Google Play Store.
Out of the hundreds of manufacturers, you chose the ONE that operates on a walled garden model. The store had 50 other phones that can use the Google Play Store and you chose the one that can't. You had your pick and that's what you picked. Maybe you thought a closed ecosystem is more secure than an open one. You even decided to pay more ij order to get rhe closed ecosystem. You picked that - that's why you got it.
Some people like that approach. I don't care for that, so I simply buy a phone from any of the many other companies.
I think my last three phones have been from three different companies, but my next one will probably be another Moto. They make rooting convenient, don't load it up with bloatware, and offer a good value. Actually the have several *different* options in the medium-price, "good value" sector of the market that I shop.
Re: (Score:2)
I gotta say, you remind me of my three year at dinner time once, "I want sketti. Please daddy sketti." So I cook spaghetti. As soon as I set it down, "heart sammich please. I don't want sketti. I want heart sammich."
She's six years old now. She doesn't do that anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Just for the record, I don't use any Apple smartphones, for the same reason as you. I was using the royal "my".
You still didn't address my point though. Why is an app store app any different than any other app?
It will be interesting if some web-only app takes off and runs well enough that no one ever has to use the iPhone Store or whatever it's called.
Re: (Score:2)
> It will be interesting if some web-only app takes off and runs well enough that no one ever has to use the iPhone Store or whatever it's called.
Huh? If people can use a web page instead of an app? That's a crazy, but awesome idea. Hey let's try to make that happen. Let's make a web-only conversation app. We can't directly take on the big companies in the mass market at first, so let's focus on a market. I'm nerdy: maybe we can make a web-only thing for nerds to have conversations about the news o
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh, why does everyone on the internet do this? Ask rhetorical questions that are intended to show stupidity of the person they are responding to, but instead show their own lack of understanding of the idea?
I'm talking about the old FirefoxOS idea of JavaScript apps that get downloaded to a phone to run locally/quasi-natively. There is no app store - your phone downloads the app when you go to the web site, and uses that downloaded app for future "runs" of the app.
Re: (Score:2)
> apps that get downloaded to a phone to run locally ... uses that downloaded app for future "runs" of the app.
Oh, so by "web-only" you meant "local application". "Web-only" means "downlaod and install an application". I gotcha.
Maybe you could even run several of these different "web-only" (locally installed) applications in different Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
They use their plurality market share in the smartphone market to create and monopolize other markets (in this case, the iPhone application market) - analagous to how other manufacturers attempt to dominate the market for aftermarket modifications and upgrades.
If Apple allowed freely sideloading or alternate app stores, they could do what they want, but by locking their phones up so tight, creating a new market that only they gatekeep, they're being anticompetitive (whether that reaches current legal thresh
Or just get any other brand (Score:2)
I'd agree it's anti-competitive.
> Their ability to do this, btw, is traceable to copyright law, as usual. We need significant copyright reform.
One of the many smartphone manufacturers operates on the walled garden model. Some people like that approach. I don't care for that, so I simply buy a phone from any of the many other companies.
I think my last three phones have been from three different companies, but my next one will probably be another Moto. They make rooting convenient, don't load it up with
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you'd be happier using the term 'dominant position', abuse of which is illegal in the UK.
It's hard to argue that Apple don't have a dominant position in the Apple App Store market, and they very clearly abuse that position.
I mean, I can't state with certainty that Apple are in breach of every single clause in the relevant law but it doesn't look good for them:
(2) Conduct may, in particular, constitute such an abuse if it consists in -
(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;
(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of the contracts.
-- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/... [legislation.gov.uk]
Hmm interesting (Score:2)
To be clear, I don't like Apple's model, so I don't buy iPhones.
Which is a different discussion than if what Apple is doing, which many consumers do like, is *illegal*. It's just interesting to me to talk about if they are doing something wrong, what exactly is it that's wrong? So your list quoted from UK law is interesting:
(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions
Does Apple set the prices of apps? Or is this a complaint that iPhones are too
Re: (Score:2)
(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions
Does Apple set the prices of apps? Or is this a complaint that iPhones are too expensive?
Mandating that revenue must go through Apple and be subject to a 30% fee feels an unfair trading condition to me.
(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
Not exactly sure what this means, as I could interpret I at least three different ways. Moving along.
The moment Apple ban someone from placing an app that competes with an Apple app I believe they fall foul of this clause.
In order to sell an app in the app store, do you have have to agree to obligations which have no connection to selling apps in the store?
The 'Hey' app is a client for a service. The service is sold, not the app. Why are Apple demanding acceptance of a supplementary obligation - to whit, the sale of the service via the Apple store - in order to place a free app in the store?
Walmart? (Score:2)
Good points. I think one thing should be clarified.
If you want Target to sell your product in their store, they are not course going to get some of the money from selling stuff in their store. In fact they even set the price, something Apple doesn't do in their store. All stores are that way. Are we going to tell Walmart that they have to put boxed copies of Hey on their shelf, and can't make any money from it, and see how that goes. Would you tell Walmart they have to put Hey on their web site? Ealma
* Apple, not Google (Score:2)
I wrote:
If Google were abusing its position as the manufacturer
I meant:
If Apple were abusing its position as the manufacturer
Monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
It wreaks of monopoly if a mere conduit can charge based on revenue. Imagine if the USPS or FedEx shipping charges were based on the value of what you're sending.
Re:Monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
It wreaks of monopoly if a mere conduit can charge based on revenue. Imagine if the USPS or FedEx shipping charges were based on the value of what you're sending.
eBay? Amazon? Etsy? I feel like this business model is well established and probably has examples that are hundreds of years old. Nobody has the right to list products at your store front. Of course, the problem with Apple is that there's no other store front. But if there was a fight here it should be to side load apps from other sources.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Difference being that eBay provides a service in exchange for that revenue. The only service Apple provides is hosting the app, they have no part in providing the email service. So it's reasonable for them to charge for hosting the app, which they have decided to set at $0, but not for the unrelated email service.
Re: (Score:3)
You seriously aren't paying attention. That is absolutely the business model for an uncountable number of markets.
Re: (Score:1)
It wreaks of monopoly if a mere conduit can charge based on revenue. Imagine if the USPS or FedEx shipping charges were based on the value of what you're sending.
They are, if you bother to insure them.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple doesn't insure them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance is very different, and makes sense to pay more. You don't have to buy insurance. Is Apple giving them some insurance?
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if the USPS or FedEx shipping charges were based on the value of what you're sending.
Not really. The only difference in this case is that USPS and FedEx don't require one to take the insurance. But, if you don't accept the insurance you are taking the risk of losing large amounts of money. They are giving you a choice between cost and security. But, they could very well make the insurance mandatory.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that relevant to this situation? Apple is not offering any insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has something that the Hey team wants. The wealthiest most-influential most-ecommerce-friendly smartphone users in the world. iPhone users. Apple is saying "You want what we've got, and you can't have it for free. If you want the sorts of users you can get for free, there are other app stores and other phones and other users."
Re: Monopoly (Score:2)
Just because someone has something you want and wonâ(TM)t sell doesnâ(TM)t make it a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine if the USPS or FedEx shipping charges were based on the value of what you're sending.
Not to defend Apple here at all, but your comment is quite silly and just shows you've never tacked on insurance to any FedEx shipment, something which is sold to you at a varying price precisely based on the value of what you are sending.
But that's not the issue at play here.
Not the full story... (Score:3, Insightful)
The tweets sound an awful lot like a manifesto against Apple, and the case they are describing is something Apple has not done for any other app - so why Hey?
It sure seems like it must be the case that some aspect of Hey is collecting payment from users, and as with any other app Apple is saying that payment collection on device but abide by the Apple Store terms. The "blocking bug fixes" bullshit is because you have to pass app review before an app submission is approved.
The inflammatory rhetoric of his tweets does not help his believability, and strongly discourages me from even thinking about trying Hey.
Re:Not the full story... (Score:5, Interesting)
The "blocking bug fixes" bullshit is because you have to pass app review before an app submission is approved.
I've encountered EXACTLY THIS in one of startups where I'm on an advisory board. Apple basically said that unless they add direct purchase option in the application, every release (including bug fixes) will have to be "thoroughly reviewed". They followed it through as well, with a bugfix release taking more than 3 months for an approval.
Apple are thugs.
Re: (Score:2)
That is pretty crappy but even in your case they let it through eventually, not outright refusing to put through as is the case in this story.
On a side note, I'm not sure why apps simply don't charge 30% more on iOS devices, and also allow online signups. You'll get some people that pay that anyway, and access to Apples instant payment is in fact extremely valuable - so valuable even if you didn't want to charge 30%, it seems absurd not to simply let Apple take a cut to have access to a vast userbase with
Re: (Score:3)
On a side note, I'm not sure why apps simply don't charge 30% more on iOS devices, and also allow online signups.
This is directly prohibited by the Apple Developer Agreement. Even for items like eBooks, music or newspaper subscriptions.
Apple are thugs.
Re: (Score:2)
>"This is directly prohibited by the Apple Developer Agreement. Even for items like eBooks, music or newspaper subscriptions.
Apple are thugs."
It is also how we consumers ALL get to pay 3-7% more on almost everything we buy because credit card companies play the same extortion game. Don't you dare try to charge cash or check customers less than credit card purchasers- VIOLATION and we can deny your ability to accept our cards. Simply pass on the cost to ALL customers, whether they use our cards or not.
A
Re:Not the full story... (Score:4, Informative)
It is also how we consumers ALL get to pay 3-7% more on almost everything we buy because credit card companies play the same extortion game.
Looks at charges/processing fees with Shopify account...
And to make it worse, they charge the merchants 1% more on top of that, and then give that money as a present back to THEIR credit card customers as a "bonus".
Looks again, to ensure what is seen and what the actual bank records show
Huh, I guess I'm getting lucky paying 2.6% + $0.30 on all remote sales (just 2.6% on in-person sales), as the merchant. Consumer pays nothing. And of course, if they use Paypal, I pay even less...
Not sure where you're getting the 3-7%, and an additional 1% on top of that, at least I'm not seeing it in my banking records. I sell a product for $299 (about our most common cart total), I get $290.93 in my account. That works out to 2.7%.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Looks at charges/processing fees with Shopify account... "
That is not the same thing. E-Commerce sites provide much more than just payment services.
>"Consumer pays nothing."
Consumers pay *everything*. Typically, the only money coming into a business is from the consumer, so everything a merchant pays is passed onto the consumer, ultimately.
>"Not sure where you're getting the 3-7%, and an additional 1% on top of that, "
It varies wildly by merchant and volume. It does look like I was quoting old
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not the full story... (Score:4, Insightful)
That is not the same thing. E-Commerce sites provide much more than just payment services.
We do? I mean, I do pay a monthly hosting fee for Shopify, but that would be paid regardless of where it was. Web hosting ain't free, and I'm not about to host internally on my own server, where I will not get the same reliability as a hosting service. Even with "business class" fiber.
Consumers pay *everything*. Typically, the only money coming into a business is from the consumer, so everything a merchant pays is passed onto the consumer, ultimately.
Yet there is no extra cost to the consumer? It's such a small amount - 2.7% on average for us - that we just count it as part of marketing costs. Just like free shipping (which we offer in the US - USPS Priority Mail for free). We make more margin selling direct, as compared to selling through dealers, that we still come out well ahead - so we "eat" those costs, and the consumer sees the same MSRP between our dealers and our direct store.
It varies wildly by merchant and volume. It does look like I was quoting older numbers and that the costs have gone down considerably. Sorry about that. It is more typically 2 to 4% now. But those are still costs we are all paying.
Compared to a 30% App Store price, this is a pittance. And to have someone else handle the ease of monetary exchange with consumers (including payment plans - we use Klarna to offer payment terms up to 12 months), paying 2-3% is a no-brainer (and if you're paying more than 3% - you're getting ripped off).
Additionally, consumers love the knowledge they can dispute a charge if we can't come to terms, and there's a "built in arbitrator" who holds the funds until any dispute is resolved. Warranties (if purchased with AMEX) are doubled, etc.
And you do earn points! We use our corporate AMEX to buy postage, and it's a high enough rate (5%) that it adds up to more money saved on postage than we spend on credit card processing. AMEX and the credit card companies can give you those nice cash-back bonuses because enough people are poor enough managers of their money, that they pay the CC companies 15-18% interest on their purchases. So they have NO PROBLEM giving back 3-5%, because they still make 10-12% overall.
And I would jump at a 2 to 4% discount for cash payment, if they were allowed to offer it (and you can find them "under the table" with certain merchants, but they are running a big risk).
Huh? No restrictions on a cash discount offer - at all. Completely fine to do it. We would take cash if you like, but that's going to be a money order (meaning - you're out, no recompense if you have a dispute like you have with a credit card), or a check and then wait for 2 weeks for funds to clear AND reach dispute timelines. You want to wait 2-3 weeks before we even ship your product?
That could be $40 on a $1000 purchase.
Yes, yes it could. Most consumers aren't willing to wait 2-3 weeks for their order to ship in the first place. In case you haven't noticed, this is the age of Prime, and consumers world-over expect to have a product ship within 1 business day, and take no more than 2-3 days to arrive. That's the norm. Waiting for cash? Not going to be viable.
Now, if you want to walk in and plunk down cash - we'll definitely let you! We love cash. But you have to come here, when we're open - we're not going to stay open for your convenience. And to be honest, it's going to probably end up in the "petty cash" fund, since that needs occasional replenishing anyway. So it'll feed our ice-cream-truck addiction, or for the "hey, run to The Habit and pick up a dozen number 2s, will ya?" kind of thing.
On top of the percent fees, you have to also add in the costs of the terminals, the programming, the monthly service fees, and any dollar-per-transaction fees and spr
Re: Not the full story... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What are the odds that the new ARM Macs with be App Store only? 100%?
Re: (Score:2)
Mac ceased to be a viable professional platform a while back.
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that was the norm.
Otherwise, a developer could try and sneak certain kinds of features that apple thinks should not be in an app into a so-called "bug fix", and have a better chance of not getting caught.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not the full story... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why it's capricious.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Not the full story... (Score:4, Informative)
Apple likely asked for a direct purchase option because the app said you needed to account and asked to sign up for one.
You could just do a Netflix and simply present a login screen. Users manually have to navigate to your site and sign up and pay there. But implying they can sign up for an account from the app for a pay service implies you're going to use Apple to handle the payment.
Even if it's a free trial, it's against the rules to allow the user to sign up for a free trial, then not offer a way to pay for said trial through Apple. What you must do is just present a log in screen and that's it. No "Sign up for free account" or other thing.
It's how Spotify etc. are able to do their thing. And every other pay service out there - either you allow people to pay through Apple or you have them be smart enough to sign up for your service some other way.
Not that Apple's service isn't good on the customer - Apple makes it REALLY EASY to stop a subscription - you just turn it off. No muss, no fuss, no calling customer support, no dealing with cancellation agents or anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Not the full story... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like he planned this fight and he intentionally violated the App Store rules hoping that he would win in court. Personally, I like all the restrictions on my iPhone. I treat my phone more like an appliance. I don't want to tinker with it and I don't want the security risks that come with being able to download applications or get them from somewhere other than Apple. That type of freedom is important for my computers but my phone is more useful locked down.
People talk about Apple being a "gatekeep
Re: (Score:2)
However this conversation is about more than that - it's not about reviewing apps for problems, it's about shaking down publishers to pressure them to give Apple more money. That has nothing to do with quality control and helping your phone be a dumb appliance. It has everything to do with Apple being a monopoly that needs to be busted up.
Re: (Score:2)
...the case they are describing is something Apple has not done for any other app - so why Hey?
It sure seems like it must be the case that some aspect of Hey is collecting payment from users, and as with any other app Apple is saying that payment collection on device but abide by the Apple Store terms.
The Tweets are a pretty poor link indeed. I wish TFS had instead linked to this much more detailed article in Protocol [protocol.com]. It provides proper context for the fight.
Yes, it's against the App Store rules to directly link to outside payment systems instead of using in-app purchases through Apple's systems (and give Apple their 30% cut). However, plenty of apps with subscription-based services get around this by simply not offering account sign ups, payment management, or any links to external sites, within
Re: Not the full story... (Score:2)
Apple has always been horrible business partner (Score:2)
Apple is the home of Not Invented Here. Don't create toys for their expensive private club if you don't want to pay the membership dues.
I'm surprised they allowed an app that competed with one of their own on their store at all. After all yours can't possibly be better than anything created internally so why risk confusing the end user?
Years ago the company that made the chip that went into all of the multi-button gaming joysticks approached Apple about making a product for the Apple bus. Apple's re
Re: (Score:2)
Even those the Apple Store is their biggest money maker. Apple was actually very reluctant on releasing it. If you remember back on the early iPhone, there were no downloadable Apps, If you wanted functionality beyond what you go, you will go to an iPhone HTML5 website. Later versions of iOS allowed you to bookmark that website on your home screen so it seemed like an App.
The current policies around the Apple Store I think are Greed (wanting to get as much money as possible), Security (Reduce the chances
Re: Apple has always been horrible business partne (Score:2)
Be very careful... (Score:1)
Apple understands tech terms (Score:2)
Apple just doubled down on their rejection of HEY's ability to provide bug fixes and new features, unless we submit to their outrageous demand of 15-30% of our revenue. Even worse: We're told that unless we comply, they'll remove the app.
Apple has been capriciously, inconsistently, and in a few cases, cruelly, enforcing their App Store policies for years. But most of the abuses were suffered by smaller developers without a platform and without recurse. Apple saw that it worked, and that it paid.
Sounds like Apple understands how the master/slave arrangement works ... don't think they'll be onboard to redefine things.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like Apple understands how the master/slave arrangement works ... don't think they'll be onboard to redefine things.
Holy shit, what a racist comment. You meant to say that "Apple understands how the primary/secondary arrangement works", or maybe "Apple understands how the master/dependents arrangement works".
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like Apple understands how the master/slave arrangement works ... don't think they'll be onboard to redefine things.
Holy shit, what a racist comment. You meant to say that "Apple understands how the primary/secondary arrangement works", or maybe "Apple understands how the master/dependents arrangement works".
Ha, you're funny. Apple is taking up to 30% for simply hosting someone's app the their walled-garden / store.
Don't Like The Rules... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In case you didn't get it, I'll repeat it again -- the cost of running an email service has nothing to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you posting on Slashdot if you don't understand how software works?
Probably followed msmash in.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Taxes suck, don't they? (Score:4, Insightful)
Brave words. If I were on Basecamp's board, I'd point out that Hey's objectives are to make money and enhance privacy. Getting into some kind of tangential social justice war with Apple seems like extreme mission creep, the kind that ultimately kills projects. Just pay the tax and keep moving. Get the best deal you can, but keep your eye on the prize!
In this case, Apple is holding the high card: time to market. Hey only has limited time to either succeed or fail, and it'll be hard for Hey to catch fire without properly supporting iPhone. Apple can drag things out for a loooong time in case of legal action. And does Heinemeier Hansson really have time for the distraction of war with Apple?
Fair? Since Basecamp is actually a business, the real question is whether they can make money at $70/year. Fairness and justice are nice ideals, but you can't take 'em to the bank. Business is all about what you can realistically get, and what you can get away with.
Granted $99 would be nice, but CAN THEY MAKE MONEY at $70? I'd venture to say that if $70 isn't profitable, then $99 is very iffy at best. Matter of fact, if you can afford to blow off Apple you're either wildly profitable or are willing to take a big loss, especially since the people willing to shell out $99/year are often the people who have expensive iPhones.
Oh yeah, don't forget that in any business profit margin isn't uniform across all products and versions. Some are more profitable than others, some are (gasp!) money losers. Often you're forced to sell less-profitable ones to round out the product line so that you offer a complete solution. Imagine a hardware store that only stocked the most profitable 4 sizes of screws -- would you head over there when starting a project? What about an email system that only worked on a select few platforms?
Re: (Score:2)
If the service costs $80/year to provide, then getting revenue of $99/year is a healthy profit margin (nearly 20%) while only getting $70/year is a big loss. Your point on some customers being more expensive than others is well taken, but being assessed a 30% tax on your revenue is a big deal regardless of your business. To put it another way, the US government doesn't even tax most of its people that much!
Frankly, if I were Basecamp, I'd look into making a separate product called "Hey for Apple" that cha
Re: (Score:2)
Many in the biz would say that anything less than 50% profit for a small software-driven startup is on the knife edge of disaster. Also, the economics of software/services are different than physical products: once you reach breakeven, every single incremental sale is almost all profit except for the cost of advertising, etc to acquire the customer. I'll take 100 customers @$70 profit over 50 @$100 any day.
Cost of customer acquisition is key in any business. Realize that the Apple Store is a form of adverti
Update: It's because Apple requires in-app signups (Score:2)
DHH's tweet thread was updated with a link to David Pierce's tweet [twitter.com] explaining that Apple is essentially saying that if you want people to be able to buy stuff in your app, you need to do it using Apple's payments system. [protocol.com] Right now, HEY doesn't let you sign up through the app; you have to enter an existing account's credentials (which you can sign up for on the web).
It seems an easy solution to this would be to allow (and directly discourage) account signup via the Apple systems at a markup equal to (or ex
Apple's Mail.app alternative (Score:2)
I've simply exceeded Apple limits on the number of email addresses (5) allowed on their service regardless the amount of hardware purchased. SO Hey starts to look like an alternative. BUT not at the expense of paying a 30% tax on top of a $100USD/yr HEY service agreement. Therefor this news is a deal breaker to even download and evaluate the potential product.
Re: (Score:2)
GMail?
Vader? (Score:3)
FTA: "Now Apple has altered the deal, and all we can do is pray they don't alter it further."
Clearly a star wars fan, this!
Like authoritative DNS? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple provides a service for which it can justify a price, even a percentage, but concluding that 30% is reasonable based on the pricing structure at brick-and-mortar stores 40-50 years ago is stupid.
Re: (Score:1)
Then distribution took their cut of shipping your product out to every computer store. Making sure your product made