Here we go again - Apple rejects Hey Calendar app from App Store

AppleInsider · January 5, 2024 8:10PM

Stop us if you've heard this before -- Hey Calendar has been rejected from the App Store, despite it clearly being allowed under provisions about apps used to access paid services like Netflix and similar.

Apple rejects Hey Calendar app from App Store

It's a familiar saga for the developers of Hey Calendar -- one of their apps has been denied a spot on Apple's App Store. If this seems familiar, that's because the same thing had happened to the company's email app, Hey Email.

Hey apps are free, standalone apps that access a paid service. This is similar to how apps like Netflix and Spotify function -- the app is essentially a reader app that accesses off-device content.

In fact, that "reader app" concept was the argument that Hey used to get its email app added back to the App Store. And, it had a specific carve-out for that general class of app inserted into the App Store terms and conditions.

But on Friday, Hey and Basecamp co-founder David Heinemeier Hansson took to X to inform his followers that Hey Calendar was being rejected for the same reasons that Hey Email was.

Apple just called to let us know they're rejecting the HEY Calendar app from the App Store (in current form). 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.
-- DHH (@dhh)
January 5, 2024

He says an Apple representative told him that the app doesn't "do anything," and should feature an in-app purchase to enable full functionality. Without it, it would be ineligible for download.

The rejection seems contrary to stated App Store rules. There are explicit rules in the App Store Review Guidelines that state that "free apps acting as a standalone companion to a paid web based tool (eg. VIP Cloud Storage, Email Services, Web Hosting) do not need to use in-app purchase, provide there is no purchasing inside the app or calls to action for purchase outside of the app."

By these metrics, Hey Calendar should be allowed on the App Store.

According to Hey co-founder Jason Fried, Apple said it would prefer it if the company bundled Hey Calendar into Hey Email as a single app. But, as Heinemeier Hansson notes in his X thread, companies like Google and even Apple are allowed to own separate standalone apps without jumping through any hoops.

Yes they do. Jason asked them on the phone: "If we just put all these features in the existing app, is that ok?". Answer: Yes. So Apple thinks separate apps for iCloud is better for users, but doesn't want competing services like HEY to be able to do the same? What? Why?!
-- DHH (@dhh)
January 5, 2024

The founders of Hey still firmly believe that Apple is overstepping its boundaries by enforcing rules on smaller developers that it does not implement on larger companies. In 2020, Fried made a statement expressing concerns that Apple inserts itself into critical developer dealings with their users, suppressing user choice and creating a rift that can be detrimental to customer service.

Read on AppleInsider

hmurchison · January 5, 2024 8:47PM

Reminds of the conundrum the Pre - Jobsian Apple found themselves in with Clones.

They thought the clone vendors would attempt to expand into new markets but instead they
simply sought to cannibalize the company with inferior offerings.

What incentive does Apple have to allow a significant amount of vendors to leverage their distribution
platform at minimal cost and reap the financial benefits outside of Apple's sphere?

xyzzy-xxx · January 5, 2024 9:07PM

Apple depends on third party software, they should allow this app. This is exactly the behavior that fuels the antitrust investigations!

elijahg · January 5, 2024 9:14PM

hmurchison said:

Reminds of the conundrum the Pre - Jobsian Apple found themselves in with Clones.

They thought the clone vendors would attempt to expand into new markets but instead they
simply sought to cannibalize the company with inferior offerings.

What incentive does Apple have to allow a significant amount of vendors to leverage their distribution
platform at minimal cost and reap the financial benefits outside of Apple's sphere?

If they were inferior offerings how was it they were able to cannibalise Apple's sales?

A lot of the clones were excellent. That was the problem, they were faster, more feature-rich and cheaper than Apple's Macs.

This is different. Apple's incentive to allow vendors to sell on the App Store is increased sales of iPhones. Besides, Apple distributes Facebook, X and a multitude of apps completely free, so why try and force this small developer to pay especially when they've already got another app through with the "reader" clause? And considering the amount of trash on the App Store - and as the dev points out, Google has heaps of apps that could all be mangled into one. Why did Apple allow Messenger to be separated from Facebook?

ktappe · January 5, 2024 11:45PM

hmurchison said:

They thought the clone vendors would attempt to expand into new markets but instead they
simply sought to cannibalize the company with inferior offerings.

The clones weren't inferior. I bought several PowerComputing units for my then employer and they worked great. They were faster at a lower price than Apple's Macs.

mark fearing · January 5, 2024 11:51PM

ktappe said:

hmurchison said:

They thought the clone vendors would attempt to expand into new markets but instead they
simply sought to cannibalize the company with inferior offerings.
The clones weren't inferior. I bought several PowerComputing units for my then employer and they worked great. They were faster at a lower price than Apple's Macs.

I’m sure it was different for different people but the design firm I was at back then bought two and they were an ongoing nightmare of compatibility issues.

mark fearing · January 5, 2024 11:53PM

elijahg said:

hmurchison said:

Reminds of the conundrum the Pre - Jobsian Apple found themselves in with Clones.

They thought the clone vendors would attempt to expand into new markets but instead they
simply sought to cannibalize the company with inferior offerings.

What incentive does Apple have to allow a significant amount of vendors to leverage their distribution
platform at minimal cost and reap the financial benefits outside of Apple's sphere?

If they were inferior offerings how was it they were able to cannibalise Apple's sales?

A lot of the clones were excellent. That was the problem, they were faster, more feature-rich and cheaper than Apple's Macs.

This is different. Apple's incentive to allow vendors to sell on the App Store is increased sales of iPhones. Besides, Apple distributes Facebook, X and a multitude of apps completely free, so why try and force this small developer to pay especially when they've already got another app through with the "reader" clause? And considering the amount of trash on the App Store - and as the dev points out, Google has heaps of apps that could all be mangled into one. Why did Apple allow Messenger to be separated from Facebook?

The question is - should it be illegal for Apple to do something someone thinks is dumb? And what about access to x-box and PlayStation stores? Or reselling digital downloads? I think this is a big ‘so what’. Walmart still won’t sell my homemade bird feeders and that’s the way I reach Walmart buyers. Illegal?

ilarynx · January 5, 2024 11:58PM

ktappe said:

hmurchison said:

They thought the clone vendors would attempt to expand into new markets but instead they
simply sought to cannibalize the company with inferior offerings.
The clones weren't inferior. I bought several PowerComputing units for my then employer and they worked great. They were faster at a lower price than Apple's Macs.

PowerComputing had the best clones - I had one. Fast, cheap, and no problems.
Most of the other clones did not rate as well. Among them, Motorola was pretty crappy because, well, Motorola.

elijahg · January 6, 2024 12:45AM

mark fearing said:

ktappe said:

hmurchison said:

They thought the clone vendors would attempt to expand into new markets but instead they
simply sought to cannibalize the company with inferior offerings.
The clones weren't inferior. I bought several PowerComputing units for my then employer and they worked great. They were faster at a lower price than Apple's Macs.

I’m sure it was different for different people but the design firm I was at back then bought two and they were an ongoing nightmare of compatibility issues.

That was just classic MacOS in general. My "genuine" Macs running classic would crash several times a day.

elijahg · January 6, 2024 1:16AM

mark fearing said:

elijahg said:

hmurchison said:

Reminds of the conundrum the Pre - Jobsian Apple found themselves in with Clones.

They thought the clone vendors would attempt to expand into new markets but instead they
simply sought to cannibalize the company with inferior offerings.

What incentive does Apple have to allow a significant amount of vendors to leverage their distribution
platform at minimal cost and reap the financial benefits outside of Apple's sphere?

If they were inferior offerings how was it they were able to cannibalise Apple's sales?

A lot of the clones were excellent. That was the problem, they were faster, more feature-rich and cheaper than Apple's Macs.

This is different. Apple's incentive to allow vendors to sell on the App Store is increased sales of iPhones. Besides, Apple distributes Facebook, X and a multitude of apps completely free, so why try and force this small developer to pay especially when they've already got another app through with the "reader" clause? And considering the amount of trash on the App Store - and as the dev points out, Google has heaps of apps that could all be mangled into one. Why did Apple allow Messenger to be separated from Facebook?

The question is - should it be illegal for Apple to do something someone thinks is dumb? And what about access to x-box and PlayStation stores? Or reselling digital downloads? I think this is a big ‘so what’. Walmart still won’t sell my homemade bird feeders and that’s the way I reach Walmart buyers. Illegal?

The issue comparing with Walmart are multifaceted; Walmart isn't part of what is effectively a duopoly, Walmart doesn't have unlimited shelf space, third party products aren't designed to work only for customers of Walmart, and there is no "access charge" to shop at Walmart.

To enter a market where a duopoly exists is hard. This is especially true, to use your Walmart analogy, when you would have to attract customers to your store initially without having any third party products at all, only a small range of products produced by you. You would then somehow need to persuade companies to spend a lot of R&D designing products for your store, products that could only be sold in your store. Companies can't just pick up an iOS app and stick it onto the Google Play store. Once they're invested in iOS, there is no way out without rewriting their app pretty much from scratch.

The argument from the customer side is similar: the customer has effectively paid several thousands to your store firstly for access, and then on items within your store that they will effectively no longer be able to use if they switch to a different store. Once the customer has bought an iPhone, if they find an app they want is only on Android because Apple rejected it, they can't just "buy an Android" like it's a couple of dollars, as people often suggest as a solution. This tie-in is a big part of the issue. You can just go to a different store and ask them to sell your bird feeder. The same customers can just buy that bird feeder at the alternative store, and it will work just the same. You can't just pick up your app and sell the same binary on the Play store. iOS users can't just go and download your app from the Play store.

I agree though that the Xbox and Playstation should allow sideloading. Though I don't imagine it would be that common because - as far as I know - neither MS or Sony have quite such restrictive rules as Apple. But that doesn't mean devs shouldn't have a way around the 30% tax on those platforms.

I don't have a problem with reselling digital downloads, but traditionally the issue there is guaranteeing the original purchaser does not still have access to the sold download. That is quite hard, especially if sideloading is allowed.

danox · January 6, 2024 1:44AM

ktappe said:

hmurchison said:

They thought the clone vendors would attempt to expand into new markets but instead they
simply sought to cannibalize the company with inferior offerings.
The clones weren't inferior. I bought several PowerComputing units for my then employer and they worked great. They were faster at a lower price than Apple's Macs.

The so-called clones were supposed to expand the Mac market not eat away at the existing Mac market and they failed utterly in that respect, the Mac clones was wrong headed thinking by the management before Jobs came back, emulate Wintel at all cost that will keep you in business no it won't. Fast forward to today there are bureaucrats today who think Apple should go back to the past and give infrastructure away.

danox · January 6, 2024 2:43AM

elijahg said:

mark fearing said:

elijahg said:

hmurchison said:

Reminds of the conundrum the Pre - Jobsian Apple found themselves in with Clones.

They thought the clone vendors would attempt to expand into new markets but instead they
simply sought to cannibalize the company with inferior offerings.

What incentive does Apple have to allow a significant amount of vendors to leverage their distribution
platform at minimal cost and reap the financial benefits outside of Apple's sphere?

If they were inferior offerings how was it they were able to cannibalise Apple's sales?

A lot of the clones were excellent. That was the problem, they were faster, more feature-rich and cheaper than Apple's Macs.

This is different. Apple's incentive to allow vendors to sell on the App Store is increased sales of iPhones. Besides, Apple distributes Facebook, X and a multitude of apps completely free, so why try and force this small developer to pay especially when they've already got another app through with the "reader" clause? And considering the amount of trash on the App Store - and as the dev points out, Google has heaps of apps that could all be mangled into one. Why did Apple allow Messenger to be separated from Facebook?

The question is - should it be illegal for Apple to do something someone thinks is dumb? And what about access to x-box and PlayStation stores? Or reselling digital downloads? I think this is a big ‘so what’. Walmart still won’t sell my homemade bird feeders and that’s the way I reach Walmart buyers. Illegal?

The issue comparing with Walmart are multifaceted; Walmart isn't part of what is effectively a duopoly, Walmart doesn't have unlimited shelf space, third party products aren't designed to work only for customers of Walmart, and there is no "access charge" to shop at Walmart.

To enter a market where a duopoly exists is hard. This is especially true, to use your Walmart analogy, when you would have to attract customers to your store initially without having any third party products at all, only a small range of products produced by you. You would then somehow need to persuade companies to spend a lot of R&D designing products for your store, products that could only be sold in your store. Companies can't just pick up an iOS app and stick it onto the Google Play store. Once they're invested in iOS, there is no way out without rewriting their app pretty much from scratch.

The argument from the customer side is similar: the customer has effectively paid several thousands to your store firstly for access, and then on items within your store that they will effectively no longer be able to use if they switch to a different store. Once the customer has bought an iPhone, if they find an app they want is only on Android because Apple rejected it, they can't just "buy an Android" like it's a couple of dollars, as people often suggest as a solution. This tie-in is a big part of the issue. You can just go to a different store and ask them to sell your bird feeder. The same customers can just buy that bird feeder at the alternative store, and it will work just the same. You can't just pick up your app and sell the same binary on the Play store. iOS users can't just go and download your app from the Play store.

I agree though that the Xbox and Playstation should allow sideloading. Though I don't imagine it would be that common because - as far as I know - neither MS or Sony have quite such restrictive rules as Apple. But that doesn't mean devs shouldn't have a way around the 30% tax on those platforms.

I don't have a problem with reselling digital downloads, but traditionally the issue there is guaranteeing the original purchaser does not still have access to the sold download. That is quite hard, especially if sideloading is allowed.

My eyes popped a little Nintendo and Sony platforms are not easy nor are they cheap to get on to ultimately, they make you pay for development tools and every square meter of infrastructure for the privilege of being on their systems up front or later your choice (like joining the Mafia) . In short they are much tougher and even more secretive. Neither would survive a serious antitrust investigation if the EU or Justice Dept were actually motivated.

https://wholesgame.com/opinions/how-to-obtain-nintendos-license-to-develop-and-publish-video-games-for-switch/

https://gameworldobserver.com/2021/07/01/indie-devs-on-playstation-charging-25000-for-promotion-and-leaving-behind-so-many-titles

chasm · January 6, 2024 2:44AM

Wow, did this go off-track in the comments!

Here’s a suggestion for Hey: Apple really hates it when obscure developers run to the press with their complaints instead of procedurally moving their concerns up the chain.

To me it does sound like some kind of misunderstanding, or maybe I don’t know how Hey’s pricing model works because I have zero interest in Hey’s products (or indeed, all third-party email and calendar products).

Try going through developer relations and maybe the matter will get resolved faster.

Kierkegaarden · January 6, 2024 5:50AM

“Hey apps are free, standalone apps that access a paid service. This is similar to how apps like Netflix and Spotify function — the app is essentially a reader app that accesses off-device content.”

How is this app similar to Netflix or Spotify? Does it stream video or audio content?

I’m not privy to the whole situation, but my impression is that the developer seems to be looking for a fight.

godofbiscuitssf · January 6, 2024 6:27AM

chasm said:

Wow, did this go off-track in the comments!

Here’s a suggestion for Hey: Apple really hates it when obscure developers run to the press with their complaints instead of procedurally moving their concerns up the chain.

To me it does sound like some kind of misunderstanding, or maybe I don’t know how Hey’s pricing model works because I have zero interest in Hey’s products (or indeed, all third-party email and calendar products).

Try going through developer relations and maybe the matter will get resolved faster.

WWDR owns the App Store approval process. What misunderstanding? It's not up to Apple to decide something like this for a developer, separate apps vs one integrated one. That's a design decision for the vendor. This is Apple overstepping and trying to get away with it.

strongy · January 6, 2024 1:30PM

They literally only posted this so they could get free marketing

red oak · January 6, 2024 1:56PM

The drama queens over at Basecamp. Everyone I know who used Basecamp moved to Slack. Maybe they are bitter on losing out on a billion $ payout

Also, I looked up Hey Mail in the App Store. Minimal downloads and traction. Looks like a failed product. FWIW

chelin · January 6, 2024 3:53PM

By the same logic, how is for instance the Amazon app allowed? Or Audible? Or even my app that I use to pay my power company with?

foregoneconclusion · January 6, 2024 4:08PM

LOL...there are tons of calendar apps available in the App Store. I guess people are supposed to think Apple is really, really worried about competing with Hey apps specifically? But not Google Calendars and Microsoft Outlook or Fantastical?

CheeseFreeze · January 6, 2024 8:38PM

Please keep doing this Apple! It’ll make for great ammo for anti-trust probes.

CheeseFreeze · January 6, 2024 8:40PM

chasm said:

Wow, did this go off-track in the comments!

Here’s a suggestion for Hey: Apple really hates it when obscure developers run to the press with their complaints instead of procedurally moving their concerns up the chain.

To me it does sound like some kind of misunderstanding, or maybe I don’t know how Hey’s pricing model works because I have zero interest in Hey’s products (or indeed, all third-party email and calendar products).

Try going through developer relations and maybe the matter will get resolved faster.

As a developer who has released over 30 apps: “procedurally moving their concerns up the chain” is not a thing with Apple. They. Do. Not. Care.

When it’s your business that’s on the line, you’ll do everything to save it.

Stop defending Apple, it’s juvenile. Hundreds of frustrated developers out there, and you don’t have the slightest clue what it is to be in the trenches.

Here we go again - Apple rejects Hey Calendar app from App Store

Comments