Apple Revives Old Fight With Hey Email App (theverge.com) 44
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.
"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.
Full evil (Score:2, Flamebait)
Apple is now, and always was, full evil. Just don't do Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably.
Re: Full evil (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Many people prefer the walled garden, including techies
Techies who prefer the walled garden are insipid posers who deserve to have their geek cards confiscated.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people prefer the walled garden, including techies
Techies who prefer the walled garden are insipid posers who deserve to have their geek cards confiscated.
Awww, the Truth doesn't agree with your Personal World View?
Too Fucking Bad!
Re: (Score:2)
Many people prefer the walled garden, including techies. Their stance on privacy are large part of it. I have a galaxy, but everyone else in my extended family has an iPhone because they don't want to live their life around figuring out which apps will F them. And mostly NO ONE CARES that they have to use the app store. You guys rant against Apples walled garden like whiney little bitches.
There is nothing compelling to these people about the wild wild west of apps on phones that you envision in your delusional app store utopia. Being able to install random apps that you think might be useful has exactly 0 value to them.
The walled garden is a feature that nutjobs like you seem to feel the need to destroy because God Fn forbid someone doesn't do it YOUR WAY.
You're a hypocrite, and it burns you up that every one doesn't agree with you. You're life must be miserable.
Of COURSE the Parent gets Punish-Modded by the Juvenile Apple Haters, just because he has the temerity to speak the Truth?!?
GROW. THE. FUCK. UP!!!
Re:Full evil (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Stocks will be fine (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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...
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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
Re: Just wait a year (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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"?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe Hey can just create its own phone and App Store and put its app on there. See if that is cheaper than what Apple charges to publish their app.
Oh look - another Apple apologist fanboi made a post!
Re: (Score:2)
How practical is it to carry more than one phone, one for each app that a person uses? And which of the phones will have access to mobile data?
Two narcissists going at it with each other... (Score:2)
...this should be interesting.
Posting nonsense (Score:2)
Re: Posting nonsense (Score:2)
"a first-name-only person who'll softly inform you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Apple is right but it is a shame Appleâ(TM)s (Score:3)
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.
Re: Apple is right but it is a shame Appleâ(T (Score:1)
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.
From the description (Score:2)