Apple’s rejection of Hey Calendar, a standalone iOS app developed by Basecamp, has once again brought attention to the controversial App Store rules. The rejection came as a surprise to co-founder David Heinemeier Hansson, as Hey had faced a similar rejection four years ago for its original iOS app. But this time, the rejection was not just about the inability of non-paying users to access the app; it was about Apple’s control over payment and sign-up methods.
Apple’s App Store rules require most paid services to offer users the ability to pay and sign up through the app, which ensures that Apple receives up to a 30 percent cut. However, these rules have numerous gray areas and carve-outs, such as exceptions for reader apps like Spotify and Kindle. The rule has also become the subject of antitrust fights in multiple countries. Hey Calendar, unfortunately, did not fall into any of these exceptions, resulting in its rejection.
The rejection of Hey Calendar highlights what some perceive as Apple’s anti-competitive tactics. According to Hansson, Apple uses “bullying tactics” and delicate rejections to pressure developers into complying with its rules. This behavior is not only frustrating for developers but also raises concerns about Apple’s overwhelming control over the app ecosystem.
After days of negotiations and back-and-forth between Apple and Basecamp, a creative solution was devised. Apple executive Phil Schiller suggested that Hey offer a free option for the iOS app, allowing new users to sign up directly. However, there was a catch; users who signed up via the app would receive a free temporary email address that lasted for 14 days. After that, they would have to pay to upgrade. While this solution seemed to appease Apple, it still raised questions about the fairness and transparency of the App Store rules.
Following the controversy surrounding Hey, Apple made a carve-out to its App Store rules. It stated that free companion apps to certain types of paid web services were not required to have an in-app payment mechanism. However, calendar apps were not mentioned in the list of services exempt from this rule. This omission further fueled the debate and frustration felt by Hey and its supporters.
Despite the rejection, Basecamp has vowed to fight Apple’s decision. However, the specific actions they will take remain to be seen. It is evident that Hey believes Apple’s rejection was unwarranted and that it highlights the need for reform in Apple’s App Store rules. The outcome of this battle could have significant implications for the future of app development and Apple’s control over its marketplace.
The rejection of Hey Calendar is not an isolated incident. It sheds light on a broader discussion surrounding the power and influence that Apple wields over the app ecosystem. Developers and consumers alike are questioning the fairness and transparency of the App Store rules. The growing number of antitrust fights against Apple in various countries further demonstrates the need for a thorough examination of the company’s practices.
Apple’s rejection of Hey’s calendar app has not only sparked debate but also highlighted the need for a closer look at the App Store rules. The controversy surrounding Hey brings to the forefront issues of control, fairness, and transparency within the app ecosystem. The actions taken by Hey and the outcome of their fight against Apple will undoubtedly shape the future of app development and potentially lead to changes in the App Store rules themselves. As the battle unfolds, all eyes will be on whether Apple will reassess its practices or continue to face criticism and legal challenges.
Leave a Reply