20
108 Comments

The Basecamp Apple Drama

Anyone else following this on Twitter?

I used to have a huge amount of respect for the Basecamp folks, but after the recent spy pixel shaming I lost a lot of kudos for them.

Now, DHH is on a rampage because Apple want their 30% commission from the App Store. Frustrated developers will of course be onboard with this, because it looks like their fighting against these fees for everyone else.

In my eyes though, it just reeks of 'the rules for everyone else, don't apply to us'

  1. 16

    Maybe it's being overdramatized, maybe it's all for marketing.

    However, I think DHH is pointing out real issues regardless of motivation.. It appears on the App Store that the rules don't apply equally to all. DHH presented a spreadsheet early on in the war-campaign (lol had to) that contained other email clients using using a sub system not using IAP. Apple is also notorious for slamming developers with update holds, and app store denials for tiny things. It's easy to do while waving the flags of "Quality" and "Security"!

    If they can drive change then its a win for everyone. That being said, it would also be complete public suicide to go on this attack; Apple bends the rules, and then go radio silent. All the devs following DHH would feel completely betrayed - Rightfully so! If that happens I'll be among them calling out the hypocrisy.

    Now, yes, its Apple's AppStore - they make the rules.

    Just like on YouTube's platform - they make the rules.
    Just like on Amazon's platform - they make the rules.
    Just like on Spotify's platform - they make the rules.
    Just like on Facebook's platform - they make the rules.
    Just like on Google's platform - they make the rules.

    so on and so forth.

    It might be a healthy exercise to now question a bit: "Hey with their size, eyes, money and influence - are they really truly acting ethically?"

    Personally, the more I look at it, the more I realize how absolutely helpless you are as a creator on these platforms.

    1. 6

      This is exactly it. The fact of the matter is that these companies have huge influence that makes anyone else virtually powerless (without critical mass). They have weight to throw around.

      Whether you love him or hate him, DHH is consistent in calling out inequality/unfairness. I don’t see anything wrong with this. Call the bullshit out when you see it/experience it, and then also applaud when there’s change.

      Making mistakes is one thing, owning up to them and actually fixing them is another.

      I love that you mentioned all those platforms, because we seriously need to have a dicussion (which is then turned into action) about all those platforms.

      YouTube: No real alternative exists. You can use Invidious if you don’t want to be tracked, but it’s really only a mask for it, not its own platform with its own creators yet.

      Amazon: You sell on Amazon and if your product(s) is/are successful enough, they’ll undercut you with their own (or even your) suppliers and stop sending traffic to your product. You don’t own your customers, analytics, or anything, for that matter. You do the hard work, and they run you outta business.

      Facebook/Instagram: Arguably the worst of them all. Cambridge Analytics, data leaks, privacy invasions, lack of accountability/responsibility…list goes on and on. Track you all over the web even if you’ve never opened a single Facebook link ever in your life. Ad platform monopoly.

      Google: Probably has more data on you than Facebook does. Also an ad platform monopoly.

      Remember—if you’re not paying for it, YOU are the product. You’re paying for it with your private info.

      Every keystroke (even if you never posted it), every zoom into a picture, every comment/like, even every picture in your own phone’s gallery is there, if you’ve given them permission to access it in order to post something.

      There needs to be a higher discussion about shifting creators to decentralized platforms where YOU are in control of your data. You own it, and you get paid for what you choose to share.

      There are already some platforms out there:
      Twitter 👉 Mastodon
      Facebook 👉 MeWe
      Instagram 👉 PixelFed (needs a mobile app to really cross the chasm)

      Decentralized, privacy-centric is the future. Otherwise, instances like these between Apple and Basecamp are gonna keep coming up.

      1. 2

        All for this but how do we get critical mass off the "free platform" onto paid private. Unless decentralised can be made free we will always be swimming uphill.

        1. 2

          Great question.

          The great thing about it is that it doesn’t necessarily have to be "paid private." Web3’s whole basis is already about decentralizing, for example. I encourage you to take a look at Blockstack. Or Textile.

          To give you more specific examples, Mastodon is decentralized and doesn’t make money. You can join a server, or self-host. Same with PixelFed.

          MeWe is a bit different in the sense that it’s centralized, but they don’t make money from your data. Instead they make money from selling in-app purchases, like dark mode, etc. Things like that.

          It’s a start, but decentralized is certainly the way to go long-term. Owning and controlling your data.

          “Paid private” should never be a thing. Private should be private whether it’s paid or not. Email providers like ProtonMail and Tutanota are good examples of this, where the free accounts are subsidized from paid accounts.

          1. 2

            Hey @hiramfromthechi – as a 👁 privacy advocate myself, I completely get the sentiment. Something to underscore here is also the question of convenience. Why would I use this other more private service when everything that matters to me and everyone I care about is in this other service? This goes for platforms like Mastodon, Pixelfed or MeWe.

            There are also other friction points to factor in, like different authentication systems (e.g. Blockstack) or self-hosted solutions. It's just a faff when everything else is so easy and smooth. You and I will go through that because privacy matters a lot to us. However, it's a lot harder to change behaviours for users who, while still worried about how their data is handled, just don't care enough or don't fully recognise the value of privacy today or in ten years' time.

            Big tech has done a great job at ensuring we buy into their convenience. Either something really sudden and tangible needs to happen in the world that flicks the switch for people, or we gradually make privacy really convenient, or big tech finally comes to their senses. I'm currently working on the second solution ;)

            There's also the phrase you use: "Owning and controlling your data," which I always find ontologically interesting and another point of discussion, but I need to go to bed.

            1. 1

              I agree with you 100%. And look, I don’t have it figured out yet either—I too am trying to figure out when that tipping point will come (if it ever does), or if it’s gradual, or what.

              There have been more conversations happening gradually, so I’d predict the mass change is gradual, with a few “tipping points” that spill into the bucket faster than others.

              Your third option—big tech coming to their senses—is likely a lost cause. I wish it wasn’t, but there have been no indications that that is or will ever be the case. At least not in our lifetimes. Again—I wish it wasn’t like that, but it’s hard to stay optimistic when so many privacy violations happen and people just shrug it off and/or don’t see the big picture.

              Apple is probably the only company that has a shot at bringing privacy into the mainstream, but even then, they have a huge challenge ahead. Additionally, I think the privacy community would expect them to walk the talk a bit more in the sense that they’d have to open source a lot of their software. Apple has been the exact opposite of open source, always, so it’s tough to imagine this changing.

              I still very much admire that Apple, having the platform that it has, can at least move the needle and start igniting these very real discussion that we need to have.

            2. 1

              Need a tipping point. Doubt a single global privacy event will flick a switch given FB's breaches etc go largely unnoticed by general users. We need to offer what big tech offers plus more or make the gap so small that people can be nudged through outrage. About big tech coming to their senses, surely they'll only budge when it makes financial sense to move and since old habits die hard I'm not convinced current players deserve our trust.

              Any thoughts on free convenient private efforts that could displace current solutions for authentication ?

              1. 1

                Indeed, it needs to be more tangible than a breach. It needs to visibly affect people’s lives in the short term. I share the skepticism regarding big tech.

            3. 1

              This ties into the need for a self sovereign web. Yes you're the product, but it's still your data. There are projects right now that are based on extracting your data from platform and allowing it to be uploaded to another.

              This is super powerful and allows breaking down the walled gardens we currently have. I worked on this very concept at a previous job.

              One glaring issue, I guess, imagine transferring your FB conversations somewhere else, are your friends messages your data? Yes they've shared them with you, but is it right to transfer them to another platform?

              1. 1

                Exactly. Not so clear.

      2. 2

        Thanks for this! Well said.

    2. 2

      Those apps presented in the spreadsheet are all either targeted at businesses only, or they have a free signup option.

      On Hey, if I want an email using my first name, [email protected] , I'd have to pay $400ish per year. That's fine, its their platform, their rules, etc.

      But the same rules apply to Apple too. If they want to sell their app using Apple's platform, they should play by Apple's rules and pay the fees.

      1. 5

        The problem is that there's nothing in the App Store review guidelines that makes the distinction between apps targeted at businesses vs. consumers, or those with a free sign–up option vs. not.

        It's fine if Apple wants to make those the rules. But the issue here is that they haven't done that — they're just handing down a seemingly–arbitrary decision with a justification that the Hey team couldn't have known beforehand.

      2. 1

        Good note on the apps in the spreadsheet!

    3. 2

      Personally, the more I look at it, the more I realize how absolutely helpless you are as a creator on these platforms.

      Yep, exactly that. As a creator on these platforms you are at the bottom of the food chain. Unclear rules, dubious rules, automatic emails after violations from no-reply addresses, no contacts, or customer service bots, canned replies and more.

      If you build your business on them they can essential kill it overnight.

      1. 1

        This comment was deleted 3 years ago.

    4. 1

      as a fast follow, I do need to take breaks from following DHH on twitter from time to time :)

    5. 2

      This comment was deleted 3 years ago.

  2. 15

    Rather than think "the rules for everyone else don't apply to us" the Basecamp guys are saying the rules are broken and big companies rigged it in their favor. If successful, these guys will be one of the reasons Apple reduces their 30% commission. There is already legislation going on in Europe looking to address this situation and the loud, obnoxious rants of the Basecamp folks will only add more fuel to the fire.

    Hard to be mad at these guys when their work will ultimately end up benefiting Indie developers more than anything.

    1. 12

      Facts. I don’t see how you can be mad at someone for speaking up in this situation. There’s clearly inconsistencies in how the matter is being handled, and someone of DHH’s influence has the potential to spark some change.

    2. -2

      This comment has been voted down. Click to show.

      1. 4

        Understandable but it seems kind of unreasonable to compare one company selling an expensive email product, to a company that owns an entire app ecosystem. While seemingly expensive, this $999 email product is so small compared billions raked in by Apple. This is like comparing a luxury clothing store to the global leaders of leather production. Even if Basecamp charged $2000 for their product, they would worth little to nothing compared to Apple. I can't understand how you can be frustrated with someone making hundreds of thousands but not upset by the company making billions.

        1. 1

          As my Grandma used to say, "Look after the millions and the billions will look after themselves".

        2. -1

          This comment has been voted down. Click to show.

          1. 1

            I respect your opinion, but have to disagree on this issue. I believe people should complain and break rules when those rules are not fair so I don't find as much fault in DHH's rant, no matter how obnoxious. Big tech companies (Uber, Fb, Google, etc..) have been breaking rules in pursuit of profit for decades, so why do smaller companies have to follow the rules?

          2. 1

            This comment was deleted 4 years ago.

      2. 3

        And they are not following what they are preaching at times. Here is the passage from their blog on basecamp pricing.
        "since no one customer could pay us an outsized amount, no one customer’s demands for features or fixes or exceptions would automatically rise to the top. This left us free to make software for ourselves and on behalf of a broad base of customers, not at the behest of any single one. "

        1. 1

          I think you missed the point. It's about big corporate customers and companies that might have over 50% of revenue from a handful of them. A $999/yr Hey.com customer is not "outsized".

      3. 1

        I don't see it as hypocrisy. Are they a platform? Are they charging for a Basecamp extension/integration 30% of your profit? Basecamp pricing is the opposite - one flat price for unlimited projects and people on your company account.

      4. 2

        This comment was deleted 3 years ago.

  3. 14

    That's not it. The rules are that Apple takes 30% of in–app purchases, and you're not allowed to send people to an outside purchase flow from inside the app. You can avoid the 30% cut, but your users have to figure out how to sign up on their own. That's the deal. Taking that path is common; it's how Netflix, Spotify, Dropbox, Amazon, Slack, etc — even Basecamp itself! — all work.

    For whatever reason, Apple isn't giving Hey that option. They're saying that the one and only way forward is for Hey to implement in–app purchases. Apple is the one saying that the rules for everyone else, don't apply to Hey. That's what DHH is complaining about.

    Edit: Just to clarify, what Hey is trying to do is specifically allowed by the App Store review guidelines section 3.1.3(a):

    3.1.3(a) “Reader” Apps: Apps may allow a user to access previously purchased content or content subscriptions (specifically: magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video, access to professional databases, VoIP, cloud storage, and approved services such as classroom management apps), provided that you agree not to directly or indirectly target iOS users to use a purchasing method other than in-app purchase, and your general communications about other purchasing methods are not designed to discourage use of in-app purchase.

    1. 1

      That's weird, Spotify is able to send me to an outside purchase flow on their app. This is Spotify India I am talking about. Do these rules vary from country to country?

    2. -1

      This comment has been voted down. Click to show.

      1. 1

        I'm not sure why you give them the benefit of the doubt. This is a multi billion dollar company using sweatshops and child labour.

        This is a classic big company move and I wouldn't be surprised if the person at apple who rejected this app cares in anyway.

        What would be interesting to know is if Spotify, Netflix, etc pay Apple some amount each year to get around this limitation or, they think not having these apps on their store is a net detriment

    3. -1

      This comment has been voted down. Click to show.

      1. 5

        Spotify used to have in-app subscriptions and paid 30%, but then they opted-out and went the same route as Netflix and other with sign-ups and payments outside the app.

        https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-fires-back-spotify-pays-fees-on-less-than-1-percent-of-members/
        "Spotify pays Apple so little in fees because Spotify opted out of Apple's in-app payment system in 2016, specifically because the company believed the fees associated with it were unfair."

      2. 1

        I am 100% sure that you can avoid the fee with Netflix, Spotify and Dropbox, all of which I pay for directly. I don't use Basecamp or Slack, but you can find conclusive evidence by checking their App Store pages and seeing that they don't offer in–app purchases.

        Also, Hey is charging $99/year, not $999 — it comes out to $8.25 a month. Fairly reasonable for a paid email service!

        1. 1

          It’s up to $999 for 2-3 letter names.

          1. 3

            You don't have to buy a 2 letter email name though.

            You see that? I said "you don't have to". So you have an option.

            What DHH complains about is that Apple does not give HEY the option to buy the metaphorical 4+ letter email names. Apple insists that HEY has to buy a 2 letter email name.

            1. 1

              Comment by @jakelazaroff seems to get to the heart of it.

            2. -3

              This comment has been voted down. Click to show.

              1. 4

                Dude what are you talking about? iOS users are probably like the half of the smart phone users of the whole world!

                Some of those are your target customers, who probably already BOUGHT what you are selling on your website.

                But Apple says, your customer cannot download a mobile app of the product they just BOUGHT, to use on the smartphone they PAID TO OWN. Apple says they should have paid through Apple. What the actual fuck?

                You have TONS OF OPTIONS to have an email inbox as a person. You even have free options.

                A maker/company has only two stores to publish their smart phone apps. (We are not taking Windows Phone seriously, right?)

                I'm so surprised how many people are not seeing the difference.

                1. 1

                  Apple is not saying that at all, they're saying they want HEY to provide IAP and Apple will take a commission of IAP.

                  HEY are the people who are preventing you from downloading the app, because they won't abide by the platform rules that everyone else is abiding by and they should have seen this coming.

                  They could implement the IAP and pay Apple 30% of iOS payments, and allow people to pay elsewhere if they like. Apple aren't asking for 30% of their gross revenue.

                  If you want to sell on someone else's platform, you have to pay the price set by that platform. Same as Gumroad, Etsy, Shopify, Stripe - if you don't like it, don't use it.

                  1. 3

                    GP is correct. Again, all Hey is asking here is that they get to play by the rules that everyone else is already playing by. Read the App Store review guidelines — what they're trying to do is specifically allowed, and I've named multiple other apps that work like this.

                    You can say that if they wanted to offer in–app purchases that they should stop whining about it, because they knew what they were getting into. That's a fair critique. But it's simply not true to say that they won't abide by the platform rules that everyone else is abiding by.

                    1. 2

                      There’s definitely some ambiguity on Apples guidelines. I think there has been a big crackdown on this lately and other apps who are slipping through the net will be next on the target list. HEY are just one of the first ones to get hit.

                  2. 0

                    If I were to buy a thousand dollar device (TBF iPhones are even more expensive than that in my country) from Gumroad, Etsy, Shopify or Stripe, I sure as hell expect them to let app/plugin/content makers get paid however they want, with the OPTION of getting paid through to device provider, and NOT making it required to implement the said option.

                    After all the reason I'd buy an iPhone is mostly because of the vast ocean of apps.

                    They could implement the IAP and pay Apple 30% of iOS payments, and allow people to pay elsewhere if they like.

                    "Allow" is simply incomplete, if not wrong. They do not allow you to redirect to outer payment options and sometimes even reject apps if they include the text "or you can pay through the website".

                    Also, why is this not the case with many other apps? Why so much of them not have to implement IAP? You know which apps they are. They have been named a thousand times now.

                    I don't give 2 shits about HEY and Basecamp and their owners, but the inequality and the vendor lock-in (not sure if this is the correct term) is unacceptable.

                    I have no idea why people are supporting Apple's decision of using their power to force people to pay commission for their work. I see Apple's perspective, I don't see why people support that.

                    1. 1

                      People obviously see the value in what Apple are offering, otherwise they simply wouldn’t build iOS apps.

      3. -1

        This comment has been voted down. Click to show.

  4. 6

    I'm suspicious that Basecamp prepared the clash in advance as a marketing strategy, it's not the first time this kind of things happens with them.

    Still, what they're advocating for could benefit all small devs. I hope they manage to make Apple lower their commission model.

    1. 3

      I think you have a good point. If successful, it could help all of the dev community. I just don't like the non-stop whining

      1. 3

        It could help the community if handled properly, but Apple aren't going to give in just because DHH is having a shitfit on Twitter.

    2. 1

      Policy change doubtful imo but if happens expect tiered charges where low-priced apps incur same % as now.

      Can only see Apple moving on this if starts to move to court and they act to stop decision against them being applied for all apps.

      Basecamp not in it to help the small devs so would take deal imo.

  5. 6

    I was following them for several years. Loved the way they run the biz. But annoyed after all their rant. It started to feel like they use all these rants to get PR.

  6. 5

    Apple should be prosecuted by USJD for antitrust laws. They did the same to Spotify and now DHH. I'm with DHH on this one, they should allow competition in a free market. Apple and Amazon goes against the foundation of American views on free market

  7. 5

    "Drama" is their marketing plan, I suppose

  8. 4

    Read a couple of tweets and the article on The Verge. Quickly realized that I have to focus on my product, rather than to focus on people generating such things during their product launch. Closed all the tabs. Went back to freaking building Hellonext.co. Helped a customer with some queries.

  9. 4

    @kylegawley I think a lot of folks feel the same way as you do, but won't speak out. The Twitter mob is real.

  10. 3

    I think it's a little too much outrage to follow DHH these days. As someone who made millions, it sure looks like an overreaction to many :). I agree with him though, the rules should be clearer and (ideally) the fees lower.

    It's one of the reasons I would not develop iOS app as an indie hacker. It's even more important as iOS users have no other choice than to use App Store. You sounded almost as other developers should not be on board with this?

    but after the recent spy pixel shaming I lost a lot of kudos for them

    If anything spy pixel blocking should be adopted by other providers as well. I am super happy someone is speaking up about them. We still value privacy so little as a society.

    1. 1

      There are MUCH bigger privacy issues society should be concerned about than some biz owner tracking their open rates on content they create and send out for free!

      1. 4

        I agree! Let's tackle them as well!

        Unfortunately it sounds like you just want to use it as an excuse to spy on someone :(. And that's not okay.

        Technology making it easier than physically spying on a postbox does not mean it's the right thing to do.

        As an inbox owner, I don't want any marketer to track how and when I access MY own inbox.

        1. -1

          This comment has been voted down. Click to show.

          1. 4

            Give your subscribers a choice and you will see how many are actually interested in your spy pixels. Your personal opinion aside, it's very clear from Hey.com discussion on Twitter that people want this practice to stop.

            And on the technical side, many people consume email the way you won't find out anyway. Your open rate is not a real number. With Hey.com and others hopefully following too even less so. Why would you even want a screwed stat to begin with?

          2. 1

            Knowing when someone opens an email can tell you a lot about the person. It's not unreasonable to expect marketers to ask for permission before doing it.

            1. 0

              Like what? I can't think of a single thing it would tell me and who is tracking granular statistics like this anyway? Marketers are tracking aggregated open rate and click rates which has nothing to do with your personal behaviour.

              1. 2

                It tells you when they check their emails, when they are on the computer, when they are working (or not working.)

                You may not consider this personal information but a lot of people obviously do. If they didn't Hey wouldn't be as popular as it is.

                And the open rates are definitely not always agregated. Convertkit shows you when invidual subscribers open your emails. So do a lot of outreach software.

                1. 1

                  Do you believe email marketers are combing through these datasets on a user-by-user basis to determine when – you, personally – opened an email?

                  1. 2

                    Yes. That’s the whole point of email tracking apps like Boomerang.

                    1. 0

                      I envy any marketer who has the time to do that!

                  2. 1

                    Even if marketers don't do it themselves, you already gave all that data to the platform. Maybe people don't care as much for an aggregated number on your dashboard, but I am 100% sure they don't want companies tracking their location when their open their OWN inbox.

    2. 1

      As someone who made millions, it sure looks like an overreaction to many :)

      Apple has over $200 billion in cash, and over a trillion dollar market cap! I think they can afford to not arbitrarily block one little email app.

      1. 1

        Oh, absolutely they can afford it!

  11. 3

    Bootstrappers are missing the point.

    Stop taking sides on this, and start looking at the brilliance of the marketing. Basecamp has taken a strong, opinionated stance on a hot-button issue, leading to being at the front of the conversation EVERYWHERE.

    How many dollars would have had to be spent to get this level of exposure for their new email client?

    It's one of the best examples I've seen of the "be transparent, take hard opinions, and have a voice" philosophy.

    It's impressive and they've done a great job with it.

    (Note: Not saying that don't truly believe in the issue they are talking about. But the marketing aspect for me is far more interesting than the issue itself)

    1. 1

      Disagree with this take. It does have to be about the underlying issue at hand. Otherwise, it’s simply causing commotion for private gain.

      Yes, the marketing aspect is there, but they also already had a ton of hype behind it even before this. If the whole Apple issue disappeared, people would still be talking about Hey.

      It’s not just about creating issues for private gain. Otherwise it just becomes the Kanye/Trump model—say some crazy shit, get media attention, sell your product, and then pretend it never happened. Rinse and repeat.

      No marketer should truly respect that type of controversial marketing style. It’s not a good look.

      Shift the ground. Everything else is a byproduct. Definitely "be transparent, take hard opinions, and have a voice,” but don’t say crazy shit just to harness attention and sell your product.

      1. 1

        I don’t understand where you disagree with me (despite saying it in your first sentence). You argue that marketing like I suggest basecamp is doing is immoral. I don’t disagree. I never argued the morality of it.

        But they’re doing it. Either intentionally or unintentionally, it’s clearly happening.

        If you agree with the above then we’re on the same page.

        1. 1

          What I was trying to express is that I disagree that all the focus should be on the marketing that this has caused. I was trying to communicate that the marketing in this case is really just a byproduct of a major underlying issue with Big Tech that’s been happening for many years now, which in turn caused this marketing discussion to happen. But that we should still be focused on the underlying issues, rather than the marketing of it. That’s all.

          1. 1

            I'm not diminishing the issue. I believe that this is all due to the founders being VERY opinionated and willing to take a hard stance on issues. And the underlying issue is certainly one worth talking about and discussing.

            But to me, the most interesting part of all of this is the coverage Hey has gotten in tech circles because of this. It went from basecamp fans talking about Hey to EVERYONE talking about Hey.

            And let's not forget that this type of viral marketing, even if it is unintentional, is the modus operandi of Basecamp. They have done similar campaigns with:

            • Software design (anti-microservices)
            • Remote work
            • Work-life balance
            • Business advice (via Rework)
            • Sexism in credit-card applications
            • email tracking

            And I'm sure there are tons more. They use hot-button issues, take a hard stance (because they truly believe in their side of the argument), and round up a group of die-hard fans that agree with them. It's a great case study on why being opinionated on the internet can lead you to cut above the noise, and I think bootstrappers can take note.

            I get that you don't want the moral issue of Apple's bad practices to get swept under the rug. In my mind, there's room for both conversations.

    2. 1

      This comment was deleted 3 years ago.

  12. 1

    Surely you're feeding the beast here Kyle by talking about it!

    Seriously though, I think it will depend on what comes out of it. Sure, they may be able to use their position to speak to Apple directly - something the rest can only dream about. If they negotiate with them as a one-off, then it will definitely be as you say 'the rules for everyone, don't apply to us'.

    However, if they advocate for everyone else, then surely the end result is what matters most? And then, isn't it good to have such a powerful advocate?

    As most here say however, if nothing else its good marketing for them at a time when marketing is at the forefront of their concerns, and I refer you to my opening gambit ;-)

    1. 1

      Hopefully, although their advocating for causes is usually to line their own pockets, rather than caring about the little guy.

  13. 1

    I have plenty of respect for DHH and JF and what they have achieved for their company, and the development community (with RoR), but I have always had a hard time following their advice or reading their books because it seemed that they have had a really blessed journey to date.

    An analogy would be the guy who tripped over the tip of a huge diamond sticking out of the ground, dug it up, became super rich and now tells other people how to be rich.

    I don't believe that they have had to deal with the stresses of having to make payroll every week, or dealing with dishonest employees, or having to drive/fly thousands of miles to try and convince customers to buy their product - or any of the million things that keep 99.99% of startup founders awake at night exactly as DHH described in his tweet today.

    They have said themselves that they never had to advertise on Google Adwords etc., so they have basically never had to deal with huge third party systems who will try and ream you and bend you to their will on a daily basis (and I include Apple in this as we have been an Apple developer partner for years).

    One of the definitions of privilege: "When you are suddenly brought down from your ivory tower and made to experience what everyone else has to on a daily basis, and you perceive that as a massive injustice & inconvenience to yourself..."

    My only hope out of this is that their actions will result in a better ecosystem for everyone, not just the privileged few who get to inhabit the upper tiers of startup world.

    1. 1

      Very well said Devan. The total disconnect from the reality of many people is part of what frustrates me, especially when he's attacking or shaming people who don't fall in line with his opinions.

      For example, shaming people for hustling too hard - most people have to hustle hard to get their business off the ground and there's nothing wrong with that.

      Also shaming and potentially damaging businesses for using 'spy pixels' - many of who are simply business owners tracking their open rates in Mailchimp with no malicious intent.

      Whether or not people agree with email tracking, calling people out, publicly attacking them and shaming them is not the way to go. If he's genuinely trying to enact positive change (I doubt it) all he is going to do is piss off marketers and email providers to the point where they just don't send email to HEY address, then HEY customers suffer.

      To make matters worse, Basecamp used spy pixels for years before they decided to profit from not using them – the hypocrisy is laughable.

      1. 1

        Thanks Kyle. Yes, I am on the fence about using tracking pixels. For marketing purposes, I have no issues with 90% of people using them for mundane things like tracking opens - it is all useful data and in fact I think it is better for marketers to know if their content is interesting to end users.

        I have a lot of respect for emails I get which are "I noticed you haven't opened our emails lately, do you still want to be on our mailing list?" - they show a bit of respect for my time and Inbox space.

        I DO hate the ones that are "I know you opened my email, so why haven't you responded yet?" - THOSE ones are the passive aggressive use of tracking pixels which I abhor.

        We have considered the use of tracking pixels in our HR SaaS - mainly for tracking if important reminder emails were received and read. There are HUGE legal issues around missing an important deadline in the HR world, so we want to use that tech to ensure deliverability and accountability. Sounds like if our customers are on HEY, it will actually increase their risk, not make their lives better...

        I do believe that Basecamp live in a fairly myopic world. Fair enough, but they shouldn't really be out there telling everyone else that they have all the solutions. They have a great solution for a very particular use case, IMO.

        1. 1

          This is the problem - most people are using them for ethical reasons – but they're being categorised with a few bad eggs using them for the wrong reasons.

          I think people forget that content creators invest a lot of time and money so they can provide value to everyone else - usually for free, and for their own cost.

          Open/click rates help the creator and help the recipient get even better content. If we keep demonising creators and building tools to filter them out, they will simply stop making content for us.

          Take IH for example – I get a TONNE of value from this community
          and the newsletters are really useful. If tracking my open rate helps IH to send me better content and improve their own product, of course I want them to track it and I'm pretty certain that Courtland isn't sitting at his computer analysing exactly what time I personally opened the email.

          No-one has yet been able to answer my question on this topic: If the newsletter is creating such a huge invasion of privacy – why are people subscribed in the first place? It's a very simple solution, no need to pay $99/yr to have a privacy popup in your face every-time you receive an email.

  14. 1

    I wouldn't worry too much about it. PWA "stores" are popping up everywhere, and soon many newly popular sites will just stop making "real apps".

    Anyone remember the YT Network Machinima? They took a massive cut from their publishers and partners and how did that turn out? Exactly.

  15. 1

    What is interesting is that there is little detail about the update on its own, except the mention of bug fixes.

    Granted every reviewer will review the app completely as if it were a brand new app. They have so little time to review that they do not install the previous version to compare what changed. I don't even know if they are given the tools to access the previous binary.

    The in-app purchase guidelines are pretty clear. A 'reader' application is allowed as long as you don't send people to pay through another mechanism. One can argue that an email client is not a reader application since you can create emails. And I guess that is Apple's stance.

    So it seems like the guidelines were enforced by Apple.

    The main issue here, is that Apple decided to enforce that particular rule when there are other applications that seems to get away with it.

    BUT if you pay attention to DHH's spreadsheet in question. Spark Mail, Spike Mail and Outlook all offer free services (as far as I know Hey is only paid) They also allow to connect to other services, meaning that the subscriptions isn't required to use the application (I haven't seen the Hey iOS app so I'm going with the assumption that it only works with the hey mail service)

    Slack is a completely different product and again can technically be used without paying (which is exactly what i'm doing personally)

    Netflix, well they decided not to share 30% (likely 15% or 10%) with Apple so they followed the rules and remove sign-ups.

    • Is it warranting calling for the pitchforks? Probably not, though a more transparent review process would benefit all developers.
    • Is it unfair? To some extent, since the rules aren't applied consistently.
      Could the system be improved? Hell yes. Dealing with App Store review is one of the most frustrating experience when developing a mobile app.
    • Will it be improved? One can hope. This has been the same rhetoric from developers since the opening of the app store in 2008.
    • Is Apple using its platform and its own reviewing power to keep competitors out? Maybe. Of course DHH, Basecamp are huge and we hear about them being rejected. But what about all of the indie developers that got blocked for the same reasons that we haven't heard about. Was it unfair competition then as well, or is it just due to the fact that reviewers are human and don't apply ambiguous rules the same way?
    1. 1

      This is exactly what I've been thinking - these other services can all be used
      on iOS for free, without ever needing to pay.

      HEY can not. If you download the iOS app, you must pay elsewhere before you can use it and it can only be used with HEY – it's not an email client, it's a walled-garden email service.

      I can see where Apple are coming from on this one because they're paywalling access to the app and trying to bypass IAP.

      It's somewhat hypocritical that DHH is complaining about Apple using a paywall to access their closed system, when HEY is doing exactly the same.

  16. 1

    I wasn't aware of this 30% commission nor the problem with it.

    I found this article that explains it better.

    https://medium.com/@phillipshoemaker/apple-v-everybody-5903039e3be

    Where do we draw the line between: "It's my platform and I make the rules" vs "Yeah, but we all use it and we want better"?

    It seems to me that Apple can do whatever they want, they created the thing after all, and in theory the market (the app makers) could just say: "Well, I won't create apps anymore" and then they would change it to make the market happy again.

    I wonder if more legislation is what is needed here? Once you reach a "public interest" critical mass you need to be regulated?

    Interesting times in which we're living indeed.

  17. 1

    Apple can do whatever they want with their platform and I think they'll win all the courts that are currently in progress on this issue. But ethically, their behavior is very concerning. They force every piece of software installed on their devices to come through them. They actively fight any other ways to install software on iOS and OSX, and now even force to sign developer scripts with Apple authorities. It is pretty much a chokehold on any open software covered by the sauce of preserving your privacy (by giving all the data to Apple). I think it is up to the market to decide if they want to put up with this. It also a great chance for Google to step up and overcome Apple in the US mobile market.

    As for this particular issue with Hey:

    1. Apple approved the first version and then suddenly stopped approving the consequent releases. Their review processes are very inconsistent and, imo, it would be pretty much the same results with only automatic checks.
    2. Apple trying to force Hey to charge through them even for accounts that aren't created through Apple Store. Again, if they would be so ethical, they can build some mechanism for checking that account exists before allowing to install the app from the store, or even hide the listings of apps that don't charge through Apple. For SaaS companies where iOS is just a platform, it will be a perfectly fine solution. Yet, they choose to keep apps as a ransom.
    3. I fully support the Hey side on this, especially the part about inconsistency. Rules aren't enforced for everyone. Heck, our own application was in store for 60 or more versions with registration and thousands of users before Apple forced us to remove the registration. (We're still listed). And I have friends who's developer account was banned forever with no appeal all of a sudden and all the apps were taken down. No warnings, nothing.
    4. Again, I think Apple can do whatever they want with their platform, since end-users aren't forced to use iProducts. I personally made a switch to Android after many years with Apple and couldn't be happier. And now seriously in doubt, whether the next MacBook is worth it. The quality of OS and hardware going down with every release and price is only going up.
    1. 2

      Apple aren't trying to force HEY to hand over 30% of their total revenue, just the 30% from IAP in the app store. Which despite being too high in my opinion, like you say it's their platform and they can charge what they like.

      1. 1

        That's true, but Hey doesn't attempt to sell through Apple at all, so why Apple prevents them from pushing updates to the app? They would be happy to pull it from the store if that was an option (as they did for OS X), but it isn't. So the choice they give — either "charge through Apple or you can't serve iOS customers".

        1. 1

          Will Apple approve them if they put IAP in place with a price of like 1000$ per month instead of $9? Or they'll have a say in that as well? I haven't seen any company charge 30% premium when you purchase through Apple, so I assume raising prices isn't an option.

  18. 1

    I don't feel like they are asking for different rules for Basecamp. On the contrary, they are pointing out that Apple applies their (ridiculous) rules inconsistently.

    I also don't think there is anything wrong with calling-out people who use spy pixels. Spy pixels are creepy and should at the very least be opt-in.

  19. 1

    I think you're missing a critical point here:

    Apple state that if you sell off-platform (ie not on the App Store) you must still offer in app purchases.

    https://twitter.com/dhh/status/1272976901762478080?s=20

    Hey didn't want to share 30% and therefore didn't want IAP but Apple insist IAP has to be there regardless. The thing about people buying off-platform and using the app for free is now outlawed.

  20. 1

    I'm not following the drama(I don't understand Twitter), but I can really understand the frustration. It's obnoxious that Apple needs to take 30% revenue of every SaaS with an app.

    1. 1

      30% is about what Apple and most other resellers have charged for margins on software products. Resellers don't do anything for you but let your product sit on a shelf and be available.

      It would be nice if they did a little more for that 30% but what they offer isn't that terrible.

    2. 1

      I agree that 30% is way too high, but it’s always been the case for everyone. Throwing a tantrum because they thought they could bypass it is silly.

      1. 1

        This comment was deleted 3 years ago.

        1. 1

          I don't think that, I just said above that I think 30% is too high. I also appreciate that it's their platform and they can charge what they want. Some people think I charge too much for my products, and that's fine – they just don't buy them.

  21. 0

    I agree with you, Kyle.

    Apple wanting their slice is no surprise at all, and as a reseller, their asking for 30% is appropriate.

    The only rigging happening comes by way of a closed market for iOS apps, and for the most part, the industry agreed with it by supporting the platform at all. Closed ecosystems are nothing new.

    1. 1

      Exactly, Lynn! Apple are not the only platform charging a commission, EVERY platform, reseller and affiliate on the planet is charging a commission. Most businesses know and accept this, and simply view it as a marketing channel.

      Do I want to pay 30% to any reseller? If they're bringing me in 70% of business that I otherwise would not have – definitely.

      The issue as you say is about the closed eco-system but Apple is driven by the consumer needs, not developers. I totally understand the frustration for developers, but as a consumer – the closed ecosystem makes a lot of sense.

      1. 1

        There are both positive and negative points to closed ecosystems. Often third parties are able to deliver solutions that don't make the platform owner happy. But that is no longer the Apple way. Then there are the quality controls, which closed ecosystems can enforce.

        It is a tried and true method that was proven decades ago with closed ecosystem game consoles.

  22. -1

    This comment has been voted down. Click to show.

    1. 2

      At least he’s attacking a big company this time and not shaming small businesses for tracking open rates 😅

      1. 1

        Big company attacking a bigger company. Something something bigger fish?

    2. 1

      Basecamp is not valued at $100 billion, and a Hey subscription only costs $99/year, not $999/year.

      1. 2

        So Jason Fried is lying, nice. And yes, they have a subscription for $999

        Maybe that was a joke?

        1. 1

          If you want a 2 or 3-letter email name, they charge more, so that's probably what they're referring to.

        2. 1

          It's very easy to recheck. https://hey.com/pricing/ says $99. I believe they charge a bit more for specific aliases/usernames.

          1. 1

            I understand that their primary charge would be $99 a year. You are correct, they do offer a special price for select usernames. I don't dis agree with what they are trying to accomplish, just how they're doing it. If it works, it works I guess.

  23. 0

    This comment was deleted 3 years ago.

  24. 1

    This comment was deleted 4 years ago.

    1. 1

      I don't like Jira at all – so slow and clunky.

Trending on Indie Hackers
How I grew a side project to 100k Unique Visitors in 7 days with 0 audience 49 comments Competing with Product Hunt: a month later 33 comments Why do you hate marketing? 28 comments My Top 20 Free Tools That I Use Everyday as an Indie Hacker 14 comments $15k revenues in <4 months as a solopreneur 14 comments Use Your Product 13 comments