Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Apple

Apple Revives Old Fight With Hey Email App (theverge.com) 44

Posted by BeauHD from the no-one-likes-a-bully dept.
Shortly after the premium email service Hey announced a standalone Hey Calendar app, co-founder David Heinemeier Hansson said it was rejected by Apple for violating App Store rules.

"Apple just called to let us know they're rejecting the HEY Calendar app from the App Store (in current form)," wrote DHH on X. "Same bullying tactics as last time: Push delicate rejections to a call with a first-name-only person who'll softly inform you it's your wallet or your kneecaps. Since it's clear we're never going to pay them the extortionate 30% ransom, they're back to the bullshit about 'the app doesn't do anything when you download it.' Despite the fact that after last time, they specifically carved out HEY in App Store Review Guidelines 3.1.3 (f)!" The Verge's Amrita Khalid reports: New users can't sign up for Hey Calendar directly on the app -- Basecamp, which makes Hey, makes users first sign up through a browser. Apple's App Store rules require most paid services to offer users the ability to pay and sign up through the app, ensuring the company gets up to a 30 percent cut. The controversial rule has a ton of gray areas and carve-outs (i.e. reader apps like Spotify and Kindle get an exception) and is the subject of antitrust fights in multiple countries. But as Hansson detailed on X and in a subsequent blog post, he found Apple's rejection insulting for another reason. Close to four years ago, the company rejected Hey's original iOS app for its email service for the exact same reason.

The outcome of the 2020 fight actually worked out in Hey's favor. After days of back and forth between Apple's App Store Review Board and Basecamp, the Hey team agreed to a rather creative solution suggested by Apple exec Phil Schiller. Hey would offer a free option for the iOS app, allowing new users to sign up directly. But the company had a slight twist -- users who signed up via the iOS app got a free, temporary randomized email address that worked for 14 days -- after which they had to pay to upgrade. Currently, Hey email users can only pay for an account through the browser. Following the saga with Hey, Apple made a carve-out to its App Store rules that stated that free companion apps to certain types of paid web services were not required to have an in-app payment mechanism. But, as Hansson mentions on X, a calendar app wasn't mentioned in the list of services that Apple now makes an exception for, which includes VOIP, cloud storage, web hosting -- and of course -- email. Hansson plans to fight Apple's decision without elaborating on exactly how he intends to do so.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Revives Old Fight With Hey Email App More

Apple Revives Old Fight With Hey Email App

Comments Filter:

  • Full evil (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Tough Love ( 215404 )

    Apple is now, and always was, full evil. Just don't do Apple.

    • Hmm well Apple protects your privacy much more than Google or Microsoft.

      The 30% store commission is highway robbery, but Apple's part of a cartel, so all alternatives charge just as much.

      • Lmfao, so you're saying their ad services are shit? But people still pay for them. Why? Also, time and again, they've proven to be liars. Just take a look at their eula, why basically says they can do anything with your information. No exceptions carved out for advertising

      • Hmm well Apple protects your privacy much more than Google or Microsoft.

        The 30% store commission is highway robbery, but Apple's part of a cartel, so all alternatives charge just as much.

        You mean the walled off Apple Garden where you the consumer only get to play with the toys that Cupertino allows you to play with?

        How many iPhone repair people will tell you that they can't use just any part in an iPhone for repairs? And even if you have an Apple-authorized repair part you need some sort of special software program to enable the iPhone to use that approved repair part. Check the Right-to-Repair news stories for that tidbit.

        How about the people that want to use certain add-on parts in their

      • Re:Full evil (Score:4, Informative)

        by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Saturday January 06, 2024 @07:02AM (#64135979) Journal

        Hmm well Apple protects your privacy much more than Google or Microsoft.

        Nah. Google allow me to install Firefox for which there are many excellent extensions for really protecting privacy online. Nothing but Safari reskins for Apple users. Apple are not as bad at directly violating your privacy, but they're worse at letting you protect yourself.

        And since the browser is the biggest attack surface, overall they are worse. IMO, ymmv depending on how you work etc, but to me Apple are by no means unequivocally better here.

        but Apple's part of a cartel, so all alternatives charge just as much.

        Very true.

        • Re:Full evil (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Can'tNot ( 5553824 ) on Saturday January 06, 2024 @02:10PM (#64136884)

          And since the browser is the biggest attack surface

          I don't think this is true on a phone, it's all the proprietary "apps" that every single retailer and accessory manufacturer wants you to install. Of course, since you can do what you want with an Android device (provided that it's rooted) you have a bit of flexibility in how you manage things, what firewalls you use, etc.

          Even in the most generous case, I don't give Apple much credit for protecting peoples' privacy. They collect data just like Google, just not as much.

          • I don't think this is true on a phone, it's all the proprietary "apps" that every single retailer and accessory manufacturer wants you to install.

            I suppose it depends on how you use a phone. I certainly have some apps, but it's a pretty small set, and I probably spend the majority of time in firefox. Also, I don't go in for accessories on the whole.

            Even in the most generous case, I don't give Apple much credit for protecting peoples' privacy. They collect data just like Google, just not as much.

            Yeah. Neithe

      • Re:Full evil (Score:4, Interesting)

        by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Saturday January 06, 2024 @08:34AM (#64136067) Homepage Journal

        Dude, Apple put hidden instructions in their silicon and holes in their messaging app and holes in their PDF parser to allow state actors (or other clever adversaries) to turn their devices into surveillance devices.

        We know they've targeted journalists in this manner and forced them to cancel stories.

        At the same time they were flying "Privacy" banners in Vegas and insisting on key escrow (like we fought against here in the 90's).

        • Dude, Apple put hidden instructions in their silicon and holes in their messaging app and holes in their PDF parser to allow state actors (or other clever adversaries) to turn their devices into surveillance devices.

          We know they've targeted journalists in this manner and forced them to cancel stories.

          At the same time they were flying "Privacy" banners in Vegas and insisting on key escrow (like we fought against here in the 90's).

          Prove it or GTFO!

  • Just wait a year (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Friday January 05, 2024 @08:48PM (#64135493) Homepage Journal

    It won't be long before both the U.S. [nytimes.com] and the EU [europa.eu] crack down on Apple's bulls**t and force them to open up the platform to both third-party app stores and third-party payment systems. The whole Apple-in-app-purchase-only thing has always been a very flagrant abuse of their market power to drive up the cost of goods and services, and it's amazing how long the convicted monopolist has gotten away with it, but all signs point towards them paying the piper soon-ish.

    As a stockholder, I cringe at how much money I'm going to lose in my stock portfolio when it happens, but forcing Apple's hand is still the right thing to do.

    • If you can see the writing on the wall, why don't you sell now? (Maybe that sounds like "put your money where your mouth is" but I don't want to be rude).
      • Apple can legitimately charge for core backend services developers rely upon, like push notifications, built-in App Store DRM and such which all relies upon Apple servers. I cannot see many developers wanting to pay for all the backend features they currently take for granted by rolling their own. If they did, Apple could easily point to the effects on data usage, performance and battery life, spinning use of their App Store exclusively as a selling point to customers (poisoning the well through legitimate

        • They must only be required to allow devs to sell for different prices on different stores.

          If Apple wants 30% and they can charge 30% more on Apple Store, and the user has informed consent, who cares?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          Apple can legitimately charge for core backend services developers rely upon, like push notifications, built-in App Store DRM and such which all relies upon Apple servers.

          Yes, they can, but...

          • There are other timestamping servers besides Apple's, and nothing prevents using them other than Apple's prohibition on doing so.
          • There's nothing preventing developers from using other push notification servers other than Apple's prohibition.

          So Apple has a right to charge developers for using their services. They don't have a right to prevent developers from using a competitor's comparable service *and* charge developers for the use of that service. That's when it crosses the line int

          • There's no reason to need a store at all; the decision to force everything to go through a store is arbitrary, and is an example of market manipulation on Apple's part.

            I know you're old enough to remember the Bad Old Days, when searching for and acquiring Applications across the Vastness of the Interwebs was frustrating for both Users and Publishers alike.

            The App Store Changed all that, virtually overnight.

            And you want to throw out that beautiful baby with the bathwater?!? Careful what you wish for; and better ask those Users, first!

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        If you can see the writing on the wall, why don't you sell now? (Maybe that sounds like "put your money where your mouth is" but I don't want to be rude).

        In a word, taxes. When you sell stock and take capital gains, you basically lose a percentage of your stock to pay for the taxes, and when you buy back in, you have a smaller amount of stock. When some of that stock has a cost basis measured in pennies, almost the entire sale of the stock is capital gains, and you end up losing a lot, which means that you only sell if you think that the drop will be big enough to offset the tax impact.

        Like most people with a job, I'm not eligible for the 0% capital gains

    • Yes, it's going to happen pretty soon in the EU. Seems like Apple had already implemented the means for doing that in their latest iOS releases

    • It won't be long before both the U.S. [nytimes.com] and the EU [europa.eu] crack down on Apple's bulls**t and force them to open up the platform to both third-party app stores and third-party payment systems. The whole Apple-in-app-purchase-only thing has always been a very flagrant abuse of their market power to drive up the cost of goods and services, and it's amazing how long the convicted monopolist has gotten away with it, but all signs point towards them paying the piper soon-ish.

      As a stockholder, I cringe at how much money I'm going to lose in my stock portfolio when it happens, but forcing Apple's hand is still the right thing to do.

      How is Apple's 15% Commission (the real Rate paid by the Vast Majority of App Publishers) "Driving up the cost of goods and services"?

  • ...this should be interesting.

  • Apple does _not_ require anyone to sign up and pay through the app. You can let people sign up and pay through a website. I worked at a place that had salespeople to sell our service. No problem at all.
  • Sounds like calling apple support - you can practically hear the "fuck off" through all smiles, first name, and the "we're so sorry, we can't help you"

    • Sounds like calling apple support - you can practically hear the "fuck off" through all smiles, first name, and the "we're so sorry, we can't help you"

      You must be thinking of another Company.

      I have always found Apple Support to be patient, knowledgable, thorough, and generally quite sincere in their desire to find a way to help resolve an Issue, if at all possible.

  • This is not rocket science for Hey Calendar. Unlike email, the app should be able to work on-device and at least offer purely local calendar functionality (even if it is not synchronised) without needing any kind of account, like Thunderbird, Outlook and Appleâ(TM)s own Calendar app are all capable of doing. They can still legitimately require the use of a web browser to sign up for a provider account, which funny enough most accepted PIM apps on iOS already do.

    To draw a comparison to ethical FOSS distros and their policies: With exception to Steam, how many other applications do you see in standard out-of-the-box Linux repositories (on say Debian or Fedora) which will only work if you log in to a single, centralised service ran by the app vendor which can only be signed up to using a web browser?

    At this point it is pretty clear our mobile phones are full of garbage silo apps which are nothing more than glorified web containers. If those apps canâ(TM)t even implement basic web sign-up workflows in a phishing-proof manner (as standard APIs allow) within their own code, they probably should be banned.

    It is just so frustrating that Apple only cares about claiming their cut and not real security here, as evidenced by the mess people encounter when downloading crucial apps like TOTP authenticators. Both Hey and Apple should be ashamed of themselves here.

    • This is exactly it, basically the article boils down to - closed source cloud app provider doesnâ(TM)t want to pay other closed source cloud app provider for hosting their content. Boo-fucking-hoo, open source your product, provide it for free and you wonâ(TM)t get charged for the transaction cost.

  • If you have an app that needs an account to do anything useful, then Apple obviously needs an account to do an AppStore review. We always created two accounts with usernames âoereviewer1â and âoereviewer2â so that the App Store reviewer could log in and actually review the app. It seems this âoeHeyâ calendar app didnâ(TM)t do that. So apple had nothing to review.

Slashdot Top Deals

To stay youthful, stay useful.

Close